Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ] Cp. Isa 28:16, from which passage probably the expression is drawn. There is a play on the words “Peter” and “rock” which is lost in the E. V. It may be seen in a French rendering, “Tu es Pierre et sur cette pierre je btirai mon Eglise.”
On these words mainly rest the enormous pretensions of the Roman pontiff. It is therefore important (1) To remember that it is to Peter with the great confession on his lips that the words are spoken. The Godhead of Christ is the keystone of the Church, and Peter is for the moment the representative of the belief in that truth among men. (2) To take the words in reference: ( a) to other passages of Scripture. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Eph 2:20, on Christ Himself, 2Co 3:11. ( b) To history; Peter is not an infallible repository of truth. He is rebuked by Paul for Judaizing. Nor does he hold a chief place among the Apostles afterwards. It is James, not Peter, who presides at the Council at Jerusalem. ( c) To reason: for even if Peter had precedence over the other Apostles, and if he was Bishop of Rome, which is not historically certain, there is no proof that he had a right of conferring such precedence on his successors.
my church ] The word ecclesia (Church) occurs twice in Matthew and not elsewhere in the Gospels. See note ch. Mat 18:17 where the Jewish ecclesia is meant. From the analogy of the corresponding Hebrew word, ecclesia in a Christian sense may be defined as the congregation of the faithful throughout the world, united under Christ as their Head. The use of the word by Christ implied at least two things: (1) that He was founding an organized society, not merely preaching a doctrine: (2) That the Jewish ecclesia was the point of departure for the Christian ecclesia and in part its prototype. It is one among many links in this gospel between Jewish and Christian thought. The Greek word ( ) has passed into the language of the Latin nations; glise (French), chiesa (Italian), iglesia (Spanish). The derivation of the Teutonic Church is very doubtful. That usually given Kuriakon (the Lord’s house) is abandoned by many scholars. The word is probably from a Teutonic root and may have been connected with heathen usages. See Bib. Dict. Art. Church.
the gates of hell ] Lit. “the gates of Hades.” The Greek Hades is the same as the Hebrew Sheol, the abode of departed spirits, in which were two divisions Gehenna and Paradise. “The gates of Hades” are generally interpreted to mean the power of the unseen world, especially the power of death: cp. Rev 1:18, “the keys of hell (Hades) and of death.”
shall not prevail against it ] The gates of Hades prevail over all things human, but the Church shall never die.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 16:18
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.
The true Christian Church
I. Let us dwell on Peters profession of faith. It is not a learned, complicated, or even detailed exposition. Full of depth. It was a rich source of happiness for Peter-Blessed art thou. What is the Church of which the Saviour speaks?
II. The church exercises its power through faith. The power of the Church, as regards its essential features, is expressed in the words, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This power not conferred on Peter exclusively. Our Lord did not connect the exercise of this power with one condition, one external and human position; but with the quality of disciple of the Son of God. When any faithful voice proclaims to you the design of God in regard to your salvation, he has the authority of the voice of God Himself; a Divine sentence is uttered respecting you; if you abhor your sins they will be forgiven; if not they are retained.
III. By faith the church triumphs over its enemies. The gates of hell, etc.
1. What is this hell whose power shall not prevail against the Church? Its enemies-external, internal.
2. How shall it resist these enemies? Not by violence, carnal display; by faith. (The late Pastor Verny.)
The Church which Christ builds
I. A building-My Church. Not a material building; made up of all true believers.
II. The builder-I will build, etc. The true Church is cared for by all the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Christ uses subordinate agencies in this building.
1. His wisdom. Each in right place.
2. His mercy. He despises no stone.
3. His power. In face of opposition.
4. The children of this world take little or no interest in the building of this Church.
III. The foundation.
1. It was laid at a mighty cost.
2. It is very strong.
IV. Implied trials.
1. Marvel not at the enmity of hell.
2. Be prepared for it.
3. Be patient under it.
4. Be not cast down by it.
V. The security. (Bishop Ryle.)
The foundation and perpetuity of the Church
I. THE foundation on which the church rests.
1. How ancient.
2. How firm.
3. How enduring.
II. The agency by which the church is reared.
1. Christ appoints the means.
2. Christ provides the instruments.
3. Christ communicates the blessing.
III. The perpetuity with which the church shall be honoured and blest.
1. Notwithstanding the ravages of death.
2. Notwithstanding the power and policy of Satan. (G. Brooks.)
The perpetuity and safety of the Church of Christ
1. Presumptive evidence of the safety of the Church. It is dear to God; purchased by Christ.
2. Positive declaration of the safety of the Church.
3. Actual facts and experience.
The Church in Egypt under Joseph.
1. This ministers comfort to believers.
2. If God does prepare affliction for His Church, it is for her good. (J. G. Lorimer.)
Christs Church
I. The edifice of which the Redeemer speaks. Not any material building. It rises through successive generations.
II. The relation in which Jesus Christ stands to this edifice.
1. Its foundation.
2. Its Architect.
(1) As Architect He selected its site. He fixed it on earth.
(2) He drew the plan.
(3) He prepares the materials.
(4) He employs the workmen.
3. Its Proprietor. It is His Church.
4. He is the guarantee of its stability. (T. Raffles, D. D.)
The ultimate defeat of the enemies of the Church
I. Gods church-My Church.
1. The foundation-rock.
2. The superstructure.
3. The Builder-I.
II. The churchs foe. Paganism led the van. Fanaticism. (T. Mortimer, B. D.)
The promise to Peter
I. Peters confession of his own faith in contrast to the report of the other disciples as to who the people said Christ was.
II. Peters confession, contrasted with the delayed speech of the other disciples.
III. Peters confession as contrasted with the less explicit confessions of others that had preceded it.
IV. How the promise to this man of rock was fulfilled. What is there in your character and conduct on which the Lord can build His Church? (John Poster)
The permanence of Christs Church
Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Divine character as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and the foundation of the Christian Church.
I. The Christian church is, for everything that distinguishes it as such, directly dependent upon Christ as God. The Church is distinguished from all other forms of organized society-
1. By its peculiar origin and history. It comes up out of the past as no other form of organized society ever has or can. It takes root in the garden of mans innocency, immediately after the first sin.
2. By the character of its members. No other organization has ever been found thus constituted.
3. By its system of government and law. Governs from within.
II. The church of Christ, being thus builded upon him, as messiah, the son of the living God, is assured of security and perpetuity.
1. The yawning gates of death, open to receive the Church; the gates into which all human travellers pass. The disciples were dying men; enemies might say that the Church would pass away with the few fanatics who had been deceived by it. Believers have died, but the Church lives.
2. The Churchs security and perpetuity beyond this earthly life. The heavenly Church. (A. J. Kynett, D. D.)
The visibility of the true Church
I. What the church of Christ is.
II. As to the foundation of the church.
1. Negatively. Not Peter.
(1) He was but a man.
(2) Peter was a frail mortal man.
(3) Peter was a sinful man.
(4) Peter determines the point himself, and expounds the prophecy in Isaiah of Christ (1Pe 2:4).
(5) Peter, as mere Peter, could never victoriously grapple with the assaults of Satan.
Some assert that Peter was the foundation in a secondary sense.
(1) This secondary foundation is an absurd distinction, and contrary to the very nature of a foundation.
(2) It would have to be extended to all the apostles.
2. Positively-that Christ is the only true foundation of the Church.
(1) God the Father selected no other.
(2) Christ asserts no other.
(3) The Holy Spirit fits no other.
(4) Only Christ can withstand the gates of hell.
III. The duration of the church, in some state of visibility throughout all ages.
1. The Churchs opposites the gates of hell.
2. Their great undertakings.
IV. Comfort for all true members. Of the church of Christ.
1. Let holy souls be comforted in this-that no weapon formed against Mount Zion shall finally prosper.
2. The Church, after all assaults and conflicts, shall be completely victorious, she shall joyfully survive her enemies, and behold their funerals. (S. Lee, M. A.)
The Church improved by trial
Satan hath emptied his quiver, but hath not hurt the Church. By how much the more the enemies rage against her, by so much the more the true professors of piety and faith increase: not unlike the vine, that grows the more fertile by pruning; or as the palm, that rises the more erect after weights and pressures; gad although in time of trouble like some plants that shut up their flowers upon a storm, yet afterward display their lively and lovely colours more oriently to the face of the shining sun. (S. Lee, M. A.)
The Church upon the Rock
I. To what the Saviour refers as to the foundation of His Church.
II. That the foundation of the church is a truth-Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
1. A truth in itself indestructible.
2. A truth never to be invalidated.
3. A living truth.
4. A uniting truth-My Church. (G. S. Green, D. D.)
The Churchs security
Christ assures us here of the constancy of the assaults which Satan will make upon the Church and its members. He does not promise the removal of trial and tribulation, assault and temptation, but Divine strength by which to overcome evil.
1. That the truth which Peter has here confessed shall never be lost to the great body of His faithful ones; that the Church shall never, as a whole, fall from the faith, or lose its hold of the truth.
2. That however corrupt many of the members of the Church shall be, it shall never be wholly depraved, or fall utterly from that sanctity which it has through union with Him.
3. That human councils, and mans devices, and Satans assaults upon the Church, shall never prevail; for, since it is of God, it cannot come to naught. (W. Denton, M. A.)
My Church
Christs Church is
(1) A community of free men. There are no slaves in it, and no criminals; no strangers and foreigners.
(2) A community gathered together for a public purpose.
(3) Gathered together by a call. It is divinely called out from among the mass of those who are determined to be slaves or criminals, or who are wilfully willing to remain foreigners and strangers to Christ and Christianity. (J. Morison, D. D.)
I will build, my Church
Here Christ represents the Church as an edifice, of which He is the Architect and the Builder. The kind of edifice is not specified. And indeed it could not well be, at least exhaustively. It is a house. It is a temple. But it is a city too, gathered around the central temple, and into which, indeed, the temple has expanded. It is Zion. It is Jerusalem. It is the New Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem. It is a place of perfect security. It is a fortress, standing high upon a rock. It is a safe city of refuge. Its defence is the munition of rocks, or of what is far better and stronger than rocks. (J. Morison, D. D.)
The Church of Christ
1. The Architect.
2. The Building.
3. The Foundation.
4. The materials.
5. Its permanence. (Anon.)
Castle of Bahias suggesting the rock figure:
A little way to the left of the village there stands the majestic ruin of the Castle of Banias, built on the rocky crest of a projecting spur of Hermon, which rises a thousand feet above the village, and it is itself several hundred feet higher. Is it possible to doubt that the eye of the Great Master and His disciples was turned, while He spoke, to that castle upon its rocky base, filling up the whole view eastward, and that he doubled the impression of His sayings, as He so often did, by surrounding them with the framework and casting on them the colouring of a natural picture? (A. Thomson.)
The Church a building
The Church of Christ is not a material building, a temple made with hands, of brick, or wood, or stone, or marble. It is no particular visible church on earth; it is made up of all true believers in Christ, of every name and rank and people and tongue. All visible churches on earth are its servants and handmaidens; they are the scaffolding behind which the grand building is going on the husk under which the living kernel grows. The Temple of Solomon in all its glory was mean and contemptible in comparison with this Church, which is built upon a Rock; small and despicable though it may be in this world, it is precious and honourable in the sight of God. Statesmen, rulers, kings, and all the rowers of hell, may scheme and plan against it; they are only the axes and saws in Gods hands, in the erection of Christs spiritual temple, the gathering in of living stones into the one true Church. (Bishop J. C. Ryle.)
The foundation of the Church
I. The church is built on Christ. It is built on Jesus Christ, and not upon any idea or representation of Him.
2. It is built upon the historical Christ.
3. But if it is built on the historical Christ, then it must be built upon the theological Christ-the Christ as represented in the doctrines of the Church.
II. The church is built upon Christ as the God-man.
1. It is built upon the God-man.
2. It is built upon the God-man, and not upon the man-God.
3. It is built upon the God-man, and not upon any theory.
III. The Church is built upon Jesus Christ as the God-man slain.
1. To be the foundation of the Church it was necessary that He should be slain.
2. The idea of the God-man slain seems to be the foundation of all the thoughts of God.
3. And as the Lamb slain was the centre of the Divine thoughts before the creation of the world, so will He become the centre of the myriad thoughts of redeemed humanity after the creation shall have been destroyed.
4. Make sure of your foundation. Build a Church
(1) not on creeds;
(2)but on the Bible. (J. C. Jones.)
Christianity indestructible
There is a picture frontispiece in Wycliffes Bible which, to my mind, is very significant, very prophetic. There is a fire burning and spreading rather rapidly, representing Christianity; and around the spreading fire are congregated a considerable number of significant and most important individuals, all endeavouring to devise methods whereby they can put the fire out. Among the number, I see there one gentleman with horns and a tail, I suppose representing his satanic majesty; and another is the Pope of Rome, with a few red-coated cardinals; Mahomet, I believe, has a representative there too, and there is another representative of infidelity; and they are all devising some means, suggesting some method whereby to extinguish the fire, and after considerable cogitation one of them suggests that they should all make a desperate effort to blow on the fire till they blow it out. The resolution is adopted, and there they are with swollen cheeks and extended lips, blowing upon the fire with all their might, but instead of blowing it out, they are blowing it up, and they blow themselves out of breath before they blow the fire out. It is an unquenchable flame, and no human power can extinguish it. (Richard Roberts.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. Thou art Peter] This was the same as if he had said, I acknowledge thee for one of my disciples-for this name was given him by our Lord when he first called him to the apostleship. See Joh 1:42.
Peter, , signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on THE CHRIST, the SON of the LIVING GOD. See Clarke on Lu 9:62.
Upon this very rock, – this true confession of thine – that I am THE MESSIAH, that am come to reveal and communicate THE LIVING GOD, that the dead, lost world may be saved – upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Ps 118:22, The STONE which the builders rejected is become the HEAD-STONE of the CORNER: and to Isa 28:16, Behold I lay a STONE in Zion for a FOUNDATION) – will I build my Church, , my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord’s words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Eph 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers,) was built on this living foundation stone: 1Pe 2:4-5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, , to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this. On the meaning of the word Church, see at the conclusion of this chapter.
The gates of hell, i. e, the machinations and powers of the invisible world. In ancient times the gates of fortified cities were used to hold councils in, and were usually places of great strength. Our Lord’s expression means, that neither the plots, stratagems, nor strength of Satan and his angels, should ever so far prevail as to destroy the sacred truths in the above confession. Sometimes the gates are taken for the troops which issue out from them: we may firmly believe, that though hell should open her gates, and vomit out her devil and all his angels, to fight against Christ and his saints, ruin and discomfiture must be the consequence on their part; as the arm of the Omnipotent must prevail.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter: Christ gave him this name, Joh 1:42, when his brother Andrew first brought him to Christ. I did not give thee the name of Cephas, or Peter, for nothing, (for what Cephas signifieth in the Syriac Peter signifieth in the Greek), I called thee Cephas and thou art Peter, a rock. Thou shalt be a rock. This our Lord made good afterward, when he told him, that Satan had desired to winnow him like wheat, but he had prayed that his faith might not fail, Luk 22:32. Thou hast made a confession of faith which is a rock, even such a rock as was mentioned Mat 7:25. And thou thyself art a rock, a steady, firm believer.
And upon this rock I will build my church. Here is a question amongst interpreters, what, or whom, our Saviour here meaneth by this rock.
1. Some think that he meaneth himself, as he saith, Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple (meaning his own body). God is often called a Rock, Deu 32:18; Psa 18:2; Psa 31:3, and it is certain Christ is the foundation of the church, Isa 28:16; 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:6. But this sense seemeth a little hard, that our Saviour, speaking to Peter, and telling him he was a stone, or a rock, should with the same breath pass to himself, and not say, Upon myself, but upon this rock I will build my church.
2. The generality of protestant writers, not without the suffrage of divers of the ancients, say Peters confession, which he had made, is the rock here spoken of. And indeed the doctrine contained in his confession is the foundation of the gospel; the whole Christian church is built upon it.
3. Others think, in regard that our Saviour directeth his speech not to all the apostles, but to Peter, and doth not say, Blessed are you, but, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, that here is something promised to Peter in special; but they do not think this is any priority, much less any jurisdiction, more than the rest had, but that Christ would make a more eminent and special use of him, in the building of his church, than of the rest; and they observe, that God did make a more eminent use of Peter in raising his gospel church, both amongst the Jews, Act 2:1-47, and the Gentiles, Act 10:1-48. But yet this soundeth a little harshly, to interpret upon this rock, by this rock. I do therefore rather incline to interpret it in the second sense:
Upon this rock, upon this solid and unmovable foundation of truth, which thou hast publicly made, I will build my church. It is true, Christ is the foundation of the church, and other foundation can no man lay. But though Christ be the foundation in one sense, the apostles are so called in another sense, Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14 not the apostles persons, but the doctrine which they preached. They, by their doctrine which they preached, (the sum or great point of which was what Peter here professed), laid the foundation of the Christian church, as they were the first preachers of it to the Gentiles. In which sense soever it be taken, it makes nothing for the papists superiority or jurisdiction of St. Peter, or his successors. It follows, I will build my church. By church is here plainly meant the whole body of believers, who all agree in this one faith. It is observable, that Christ calls it his church, not Peters, and saith, I will build, not, thou shalt build. The working of faith in souls is Gods work. Men are but ministers, by whom others believe. They have but a ministry towards, not a lordship over the church of God.
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; that is, the power of the devil and all his instruments shall never prevail against it utterly to extinguish it, neither to extinguish true faith in the heart of any particular believer, nor to root the gospel out of the world.
The gates is here put for the persons that sit in the gates. It was their custom to have the rulers to sit in the gates, Rth 4:1,11; 2Sa 19:8. Neither doth hell signify here the place of the damned; no where (except in one place, and as to that it is questionable, Luk 16:23) signifies so, but either death, or the graves, or the state of the dead: yet the devil is also understood here, as he that hath the power of death, Heb 2:14. The plain sense is, that our Lord would build the Christian church upon this proposition of truth, that he was the Christ, the Son of God; that Peter should be an eminent instrument in converting men to this faith; and where this faith obtained in the world, he would so far protect it, that though the devil and his instruments should by all means imaginable attempt the extinguishing of it by the total extirpation of it, the professors of it, and might as to particular places prevail; yet they should never so prevail, but to the end of the world he would have a church, a number of people called out by his apostles, and those who should succeed in their ministry, who should uphold this great truth. So as this is a plain promise for the continuance of the gospel church to the end of the world.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. And I say also unto theethatis, “As thou hast borne such testimony to Me, even so in returndo I to thee.”
That thou art PeterAthis first calling, this new name was announced to him as an honorafterwards to be conferred on him (Joh1:43). Now he gets it, with an explanation of what it was meantto convey.
and upon this rockAs”Peter” and “Rock” are one word in the dialectfamiliarly spoken by our Lordthe Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic,which was the mother tongue of the countrythis exalted playupon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have oneword for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectlyrepresented. In French, as WEBSTERand WILKINSON remark, itis perfect, Pierrepierre.
I will build my Churchnoton the man Simon Bar-jona; but on him as the heavenly-taughtconfessor of a faith. “My Church,” says our Lord, callingthe Church HIS OWN;a magnificent expression regarding Himself, remarks BENGELnowhereelse occurring in the Gospels.
and the gates of hell“ofHades,” or, the unseen world; meaning, the gates of Death: inother words, “It shall never perish.” Some explain it of”the assaults of the powers of darkness”; but though thatexpresses a glorious truth, probably the former is the sense here.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And I say also unto thee,…. Either besides what he had already said concerning his happiness; or, as the father had revealed something great and valuable, so likewise would he; or inasmuch as he had freely said and declared who, and what he was, in like manner he also would say what Peter was, thou art Peter: intimating, that he was rightly called Peter, or Cephas, by him, when he first became a follower of him, Mt 4:18, which words signify the same thing, a rock, or stone; because of his firmness and solidity, and because he was laid upon the sure foundation, and built on the rock Christ, and was a very fit stone to be laid in the spiritual building. The aptness of this name to him is easy to be seen in his full assurance of faith, as to the person of Christ, and his free, open, and undaunted confession of him.
And upon this rock will I build my church: by the church, is meant, not an edifice of wood, stones, c. but an assembly, and congregation of men and that not of any sort; not a disorderly, tumultuous assembly, in which sense this word is sometimes taken; nor does it design the faithful of a family, which is sometimes the import of it; nor a particular congregated church, but the elect of God, the general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven; and especially such of them as were to be gathered in, and built on Christ, from among the Jews and Gentiles. The materials of this building are such, as are by nature no better, or more fit for it, than others: these stones originally lie in the same quarry with others; they are singled out, and separated from the rest, according to the sovereign will of God, by powerful and efficacious grace; and are broken and hewn by the Spirit of God, generally speaking, under the ministry of the word, and are, by him, made living stones; and being holy and spiritual persons, are built up a spiritual house: and these are the only persons which make up the true and invisible church of Christ in the issue, and are only fit to be members of the visible church; and all such ought to be in a Gospel church state, and partake of the privileges of it: these materials are of different sorts, and have a different place, and have a different usefulness in this building; some are only as common stones, and timber; others are as pillars, beams, and rafters; and all are useful and serviceable; and being put, and knit together, grow up as an holy temple to the Lord: and are called, by Christ, “my” church, because given him by the Father; and he has purchased them with his own blood; are built by him, and on him; inhabited by him, and of whom he is the head, king, and governor; though not to the exclusion of the Father, whose house they also are; nor of the Spirit, who dwells in them, as in his temple. This church Christ promises to “build”. Though his ministers are builders, they are but under builders; they are qualified, employed, directed, encouraged, and succeeded by him; he is the wise, able, and chief master builder. This act of building seems to have a special regard to the conversion of God’s elect, both among Jews and Gentiles, particularly the latter; and to the daily conversions of them in all ages; and to the building up of saints in faith and holiness; each of which will more manifestly appear in the latter day; and are both generally effected through the word, and ordinances, as means, the Spirit of Christ blessing them. By the rock on which Christ builds his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone, and there may be some allusion to it; and he is so called because of his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, Eph 2:20 without any distinction from them, and preference to them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the church is built, which is Christ, and him only. Moreover, what is said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with Mt 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ spake to him, including them all. Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any appearance of it in any of them; see Mt 18:1 and though Peter, with James, and John, had some particular favours bestowed on him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, and at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection, and before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter’s? Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; and is comparable to any rock for height, shelter, strength, firmness, and duration; and is the one and only foundation of his church and people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to them; and therefore betake themselves to him for shelter, and where they are secure from the wrath of God, and rage of men: he is the rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm, and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope, and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Jews speak of the gates of hell: sometimes of the gate of hell, in the singular number p; and sometimes of the gates of hell, in the plural number. They say q, that
“Mnhygl vy Myxtp hvlv, “hell has three gates”, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem.”
They talk r of
“an angel that is appointed , “over the gates of hell”, whose name is Samriel; who has three keys in his hands, and opens three doors.”
And elsewhere s they say, that
“he that is appointed over hell his name is Dumah, and many myriads of destroying angels are with him, and he stands
, “at the gate of hell”; and all those that keep the holy covenant in this world, he has no power to bring them in.”
Our Lord may allude to these notions of the Jews, and his sense be, that all the infernal principalities and powers, with all their united cunning and strength, will never be able to extirpate his Gospel, to destroy his interest, to demolish his church in general, or ruin anyone particular soul that is built upon him. Again, the gates of “Hades”, or hell, sometimes seem to design no other than the gates of death, and the grave, and persons going into the state of death; see Job 38:17 where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and then the sense is, that neither death, nor the grave, shall finally, and totally prevail over the people of God, and members of Christ; but they shall be raised out of such a state, and live gloriously with him for ever. By it here is not meant Peter himself; though it is true of him, that Satan, and his posse of devils that beset him, did not prevail against him, so as to destroy his grace, hurt his estate, and hinder his salvation: nor could death, in all its frightful appearances, deter him from holding, and preaching, and maintaining the doctrine of Christ; and though death, and the grave, have now power over him, yet they shall not always detain him: but rather, it designs the doctrine Peter made a confession of; which, though it may be opposed by hell and earth, by Satan, and his emissaries, by the open force of persecutors, and the secret fraud of heretics, it may be brought into contempt by the scandalous lives of professors; and though the true professors of it may die off, yet truth itself always lives, and defies the power of death, and the grave: or else the church in general is meant, and every true believer. These words do not ascertain the continuance of anyone particular congregated church, but secures the church universal, which will continue as long as the sun and moon endure, and the perseverance of everyone of God’s elect; and assure that death, and the grave, shall not always have the dominion over the saints, but that they shall be rescued from them. Once more, this “it” may refer to Christ the rock, who, though he was brought to the dust of death, by the means of Satan, and the powers of darkness, yet to the ruin of him that had the power of death; and though death, and the grave, had power over him for a while, yet could not hold him; he rose victorious over them, and ever lives, having the keys of hell and death, to open the gates thereof, and let his people out when he thinks fit.
p T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 39. 1. Succa, fol. 32. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 84. 1. q T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Menasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Chayim, fol, 33. 1, 2. r Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 4. s Ib. fol. 7. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And I also say unto thee (‘ ). “The emphasis is not on ‘Thou art Peter’ over against ‘Thou art the Christ,’ but on : ‘The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another” (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (Joh 1:42). Peter () is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse 17 Jesus addresses him as “Simon Bar-Jonah,” his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname “Peter” which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter’s name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife.
On this rock ( ) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
I will build my church ( ). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant “assembly” (Ac 19:39), but it came to be applied to an “unassembled assembly” as in Ac 8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. “And the name for the new Israel, , in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deut. (Deut 18:26; Deut 23:2) and Psalms (Ps 22:36), both books well known to Jesus” (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Ps 89 most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. So in Ps 89:5; in Ps 89:6; in Ps 89:22; in Ps 89:39; Ps 89:52; in Ps 89:49 ( ). If one is puzzled over the use of “building” with the word it will be helpful to turn to 1Pe 2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1Pe 1:1), says: “You are built a spiritual house” ( ). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1Pe 2:9) he speaks of them as an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, showing beyond controversy that Peter’s use of building a spiritual house is general, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in 16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ’s Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
The gates of Hades ( )
shall not prevail against it ( ). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses in 1Co 15:55 in quoting Ho 13:14 for . It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, “doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion” (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). The ancient pagans divided Hades ( privative and , to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham’s bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. Lu 16:25). Christ was in Hades (Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). “In the Old Testament the ‘gates of Hades’ (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa 38:10; Wisd. 16:3; 3Macc. 5:51) than death,” McNeile claims. See also Ps 9:13; Ps 107:18; Job 38:17 ( ). It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ’s church, but of death’s possible victory over the church. “The is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse 21); it is echoed in Acts 2:24; Acts 2:31” (McNeile). Christ’s church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb (literally have strength against, from and –) occurs also in Luke 21:36; Luke 23:23. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in Mt 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. Sublime Porte used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Thou art Peter [ ] . Christ responds to Peter’s emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” Christ replies, “Thou art Peter.” Petrov (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (Joh 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (” Iliad, “7 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (” Iliad,” 16 734).
On this rock [ ] . The word is feminine, and mean a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (petrov, above).
Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (” Odyssey, “9 243), the rock [] which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two – and – twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (” Odyssey,” 9 484). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the “Father in Heaven.”
The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect : “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner – stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ ‘s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1Pe 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones. In Rev 21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation – stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph 2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i. e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner – stone.”
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon ‘s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men. “The word petra,” says Edersheim, “was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said : ‘Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world, ‘ whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said : ‘Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn. ‘ The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord ‘s promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss” (” Life and Times of Jesus “).
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation – stone. See Act 1:15; Act 2:14, 37; Act 3:13; Act 4:8; Act 5:15, 29; Act 9:34, 40; Act 10:25, 26; Gal 1:18.
Church [] , ejk, out, kalew, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Act 19:39. The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1Ki 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Gen 28:3), where assembly is given for multitude in margin. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Act 7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed sunagwgh, of which synagogue is a transcription; sun, together, agw, to bring (Act 13:43). In Christ ‘s words to Peter the word ejkklhsia acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ejkklhsia, without being confounded with the sunagwgh, the Jewish community. See Act 5:11; Act 8:1; Act 12:1; Act 14:23, 27, etc. Nevertheless sunagwgh is applied to a Christian assembly in Jas 2:2, while ejpisunagwgh (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2Th 2:1; Heb 10:25. Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ejkklhsia implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way. In the New Testament the term is used also in the narrower sense of a single church, or a church confined to a particular place. So of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom 16:5); the church at Corinth, the churches in Judea, the church at Jerusalem, etc.
Gates of hell [ ] . Rev., Hades. Hades was originally the name of the God who presided over the realm of the dead – Pluto or Dis. Hence the phrase, house of Hades. It is derived from aj, not, and iJudein, to see; and signifies, therefore, the invisible land, the realm of shadow. It is the place to which all who depart this life descend, without reference to their moral character.
By this word the Septuagint translated the Hebrew Sheol, which has a similar general meaning. The classical Hades embraced both good and bad men, though divided into Elysium, the abode of the virtuous, and Tartarus, the abode of the wicked. In these particulars it corresponds substantially with Sheol; both the godly and the wicked being represented as gathered into the latter. See Gen 42:38; Psa 9:17; Psa 139:8; Isa 14:9; Isa 57:2; Eze 32:27; Hos 13:14. Hades and Sheol were alike conceived as a definite place, lower than the world. The passage of both good and bad into it was regarded as a descent. The Hebrew conception is that of a place of darkness; a cheerless home of a dull, joyless, shadowy life. See Psalms Psa 6:5; Psa 94:17; Psa 115:17; Psa 88:5, 6, 10; Job 10:21; Job 3:17 – 19; Job 14:10, 11; Ecc 4:5. Vagueness is its characteristic. In this the Hebrew’s faith appears bare in contrast with that of the Greek and Roman. The pagan poets gave the popular mind definite pictures of Tartarus and Elysium; of Styx and Acheron; of happy plains where dead heroes held high discourse, and of black abysses where offenders underwent strange and ingenious tortures.
There was, indeed, this difference between the Hebrew and the Pagan conceptions; that to the Pagan, Hades was the final home of its tenants, while Sheol was a temporary condition. Hence the patriarchs are described (Heb 11:16) as looking for a better, heavenly country; and the martyrs as enduring in hope of “a better resurrection.” Prophecy declared that the dead should arise and sing, when Sheol itself should be destroyed and its inmates brought forth, some to everlasting life, and others to shame and contempt (Isa 26:19; Hos 13:14; Dan 12:2). Paul represents this promise as made to the fathers by God, and as the hope of his countrymen (Act 26:7). God was the God of the dead as well of the living; present in the dark chambers of Sheol as well as in heaven (Psa 139:8; Psa 16:10). This is the underlying thought of that most touching and pathetic utterance of Job (xiv. 13 – 15), in which he breathes the wish that God would him with loving care in Hades, as a place of temporary concealment, where he will wait patiently, standing like a sentinel at his post, awaiting the divine voice calling him to a new and happier life. This, too, is the thought of the familiar and much – disputed passage, Job 19:23 – 27. His Redeemer, vindicator, avenger, shall arise after he shall have passed through the shadowy realm of Sheol. “A judgment in Hades, in which the judge will show himself his friend, in which all the tangled skein of his life will be unravelled by wise and kindly hands, and the insoluble problem of his strange and self – contradicting experience will at last be solved – this is what Job still looks for on that happy day when he shall see God for himself, and find his Goel (vindicator) in that Almighty Deliverer” (Cox, ” Commentary on the Book of Job “).
In the New Testament, Hades is the realm of the dead. It cannot be successfully maintained that it is, in particular, the place for sinners (so Cremer, “Biblico – Theological Lexicon “). The words about Capernaum (Mt 11:23), which it is surprising to find Cremer citing in support of this position, are merely a rhetorical expression of a fall from the height of earthly glory to the deepest degradation, and have no more bearing upon the moral character of Hades than the words of Zophar (Job 11:7, 8) about the perfection of the Almighty.” It is high as heaven – deeper than Sheol. “Hades is indeed coupled with Death (Rev 1:18; Rev 6:8; Rev 20:13, 14), but the association is natural, and indeed inevitable, apart from all moral distinctions. Death would naturally be followed by Hades in any case. In Rev 20:13, 14, the general judgment is predicted, and not only Death and Hades, but the sea give up their dead, and only those who are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire (ver. 15). The rich man was in Hades (Luk 16:23), and in torments, but Lazarus was also in Hades,” in Abraham ‘s bosom. “The details of this story” evidently represent the views current at the time among the Jews. According to them, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life were the abode of the blessed…. We read that the righteous in Eden see the wicked in Gehenna and rejoice; and similarly, that the wicked in Gehenna see the righteous sitting beatified in Eden, and their souls are troubled (Edersheim, ” Life and Times of Jesus “). Christ also was in Hades (Act 2:27, 31). Moreover, the word geenna, hell, (see on Mt 5:22), is specially used to denote the place of future punishment.
Hades, then, in the New Testament, is a broad and general conception, with an idea of locality bound up with it. It is the condition following death, which is blessed or the contrary, according to the moral character of the dead, and is therefore divided into different realms, represented by Paradise or Abraham ‘s bosom, and Gehenna.
The expression Gates of Hades is an orientalism for the court, throne, power, and dignity of the infernal kingdom. Hades is contemplated as a mighty city, with formidable, frowning portals. Some expositors introduce also the idea of the councils of the Satanic powers, with reference to the Eastern custom of holding such deliberations in the gates of cities. Compare the expression Sublime Porte, applied to the Ottoman court. The idea of a building is maintained in both members of the comparison. The kingdom or city of Hades confronts and assaults the church which Christ will build upon the rock. See Job 38:17; Psa 9:13; Psa 107:18; Isa 38:10.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
18. And I say to thee. By these words Christ declares how highly he is delighted with the confession of Peter, since he bestows upon it so large a reward. For, though he had already given to his disciple, Simon, the name of Peter, (Mat 10:2; Joh 1:42,) and had, out of his undeserved goodness, appointed him to be an apostle, yet these gifts, though freely bestowed, (439) are here ascribed to faith as if they had been a reward, which we not unfrequently find in Scripture. Peter receives a twofold honor, the former part of which relates to his personal advantage, and the latter to his office as an Apostle.
Thou art Peter. By these words our Lord assures him that it was not without a good reason that he had formerly given him this name, because, as a living stone (1Pe 2:5) in the temple of God, he retains his stedfastness. This extends, no doubt, to all believers, each of whom is a temple of God, (1Co 6:19,) and who, united to each other by faith, make together one temple, (Eph 2:21.) But it denotes also the distinguished excellence of Peter above the rest, as each in his own order receives more or less, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, (Eph 4:7.)
And on this rock. Hence it is evident how the name Peter comes to be applied both to Simon individually, and to other believers. It is because they are founded on the faith of Christ, and joined together, by a holy consent, into a spiritual building, that God may dwell in the midst of them, (Eze 43:7.) For Christ, by announcing that this would be the common foundation of the whole Church, intended to associate with Peter all the godly that would ever exist in the world. “You are now,” said he, “a very small number of men, and therefore the confession which you have now made is not at present supposed to have much weight; but ere long a time will arrive when that confession shall assume a lofty character, and shall be much more widely spread.” And this was eminently fitted to excite his disciples to perseverance, that though their faith was little known and little esteemed, yet they had been chosen by the Lord as the first-fruits, that out of this mean commencement there might arise a new Church, which would prove victorious against all the machinations of hell.
Shall not prevail against it. The pronoun it ( αὐτὢς) may refer either to faith or to the Church; but the latter meaning is more appropriate. Against all the power of Satan the firmness of the Church will prove to be invincible, because the truth of God, on which the faith of the Church rests, will ever remain unshaken. And to this statement corresponds that saying of John,
This is the victory which overcometh the world, your faith, (1Jo 5:4.)
It is a promise which eminently deserves our observation, that all who are united to Christ, and acknowledge him to be Christ and Mediator, will remain to the end safe from all danger; for what is said of the body of the Church belongs to each of its members, since they are one in Christ. Yet this passage also instructs us, that so long as the Church shall continue to be a pilgrim on the earth, she will never enjoy rest, but will be exposed to many attacks; for, when it is declared that Satan will not conquer, this implies that he will be her constant enemy. While, therefore, we rely on this promise of Christ, feel ourselves at liberty to boast against Satan, and already triumph by faith over all his forces; let us learn, on the other hand, that this promise is, as it were, the sound of a trumpet, calling us to be always ready and prepared for battle. By the word gates ( πύλαι) is unquestionably meant every kind of power and of weapons of war.
(439) “ Ces dons qui estoyent procedez de sa pure liberalite;” — “those gifts which had proceeded altogether from his liberality.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
IS THE CHURCH DEAD OR DYING?
Heb 12:22-23; Mat 16:18.
TRAVEL by auto is not conducive to reading nor compatible with book study. And yet, a while ago on a western auto trip certain articles upon which my eyes fell suggested this sermon; and to them I may appeal in quotations.
On that trip I purchased and read Leslie H. Allens volume on Bryan and Darrow at Dayton the famous Scopes trial. In the office of a brother pastor I found the Baptist of November 16th, 1929, carrying an article on The Churchs Deepest Wound by Dr. Charles E. Jefferson of New York City. On another day I read with interest, in the Literary Digest of November 30th, 1929, an article on The Coroner Not Needed for the Church. Inasmuch as these three publications all dealt with the same subject, the life or death of the Church, my mind naturally dwelt much upon the question, Will the Church Live or Die?
The two texts to which I call your attention would seem to be the inspired answer to this uninspired query. In the first of these texts we are told what the Church is: new born ones whose names are written in Heaven. That fact would, to say the least, mean its immortality. But in the second, we have the assurance of Jesus, the infinitely wise Son of God, that the gates of heir shall not prevail against it.
However, neither text promises the Church exemption from test, trial, or even temporary defeat. There are three things, then, that one may say concerning the Church; and in each statement be assured of the backing of the Bible: 1. The Church Must Suffer! 2. The Church Cannot Die! 3. The Church Will Conquer!
THE CHURCH MUST SUFFER
It is an interesting study to see at what points Christ suffered and, then, to parallel His experiences as the Head with that of the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
Christ suffered at the hands of His enemies; Christ endured the betrayal of professed friends; and Christ was sorely disappointed in genuine disciples.
The Church was never promised exemption at any of these points.
It has, and will continue to have, its bitter enemies. The Pharisees were never more determined upon His death, and the Sadducees were never more ready to lend assistance in the same, than certain individuals and organizations of the present are set upon the destruction of the Church.
For the first time in American history a great state, through one of its judges, has provided a charter to an organization, the express purpose of which is to destroy the Church. And while Atheism is brazen enough to thus avow its definite intention, there are literally scores of individuals, and no small number of organizations, that entertain the same malignant purpose.
But this is nothing new under the sun. Christ Himself said,
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you * *.
All these things will they do unto you for My Names sake, because they know not Him that sent Me (Joh 15:18-21).
It is most amazing what calumnies can be hurled against the Church. Atheism charges her with ignorance, bigotry, oppression, with being the chief foe of progress, the malignant enemy of man; but it remains for the professed churchman, a prominent modernistic pastor, to charge her with all the brutalities of the late waryea, with the war itself. As Judas Iscariot, who was a professed Apostle of the Christian faith, sought to incriminate Jesus, as a self-seeking waster of precious perfume, when Mary, without announcement, broke the vial over His head, so this disciple of the new theology charges the Church of God with the selfish waste of the war that broke unexpectedly over the Church, and brought her nothing but sorrow and sobs.
From avowed enemies cruel charges are to be expected; but alas, for the deeper betrayal of professed friends.
The true Church of God, the Heaven born, whose names are written in Heaven, had nothing to do with the late war, except to grieve it. And they had no responsibility whatever to either prevent or bring that war to an end, since the Church is not commissioned as a peace-maker.
Christ, its great Head, was clear upon this point. He came not to control the conduct of the unregenerate world, nor yet to arbitrate disputes as between nations. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division (Luk 12:51).
The most superficial student of the Bible would see that Christs first appearance was not as the Prince of Peace, but rather, as a personal Saviour. That coming was to the end that the lost might be sought and found (Luk 19:10), and that individual regenerations, in response to faith, might be wrought. I challenge any student of the Book to find within the pages of the New Testament any Church commission which looks to the arbitration and possible adjustment of international difficulties.
It is little wonder that modernism, in discussing The Churchs Deepest Wound never makes a remote reference to a Bible text; and, by thus ignoring what that sacred Book has to say, it joins the enemies of the Church itself to send into her side another stab.
The betrayal of professed friends is most painful. Jesus faced His open enemies; but never did He suffer by their acrimonious speech, never from the spit that fell upon His face, nay, not even from the nails that pierced His hands and feet or the thorned-crown that bled His brow, as He did when He looked into the face of Judas and realized that He was betrayed by a professed friend. Perhaps in all human or even Divine speech, no more withering sarcasm was ever employed than this: FRIEND, wherefore art thou come? (Mat 26:50)?
In view of that fact I have been running through my New Testament to see who, in the Church, stabbed it the deepest. I suspect that the inspired record of human conduct is very incomplete, and that many disciples betrayed the Church in one way or another, and the inspired Book flung over their conduct the merciful cloak of non-record. But there are some mens behavior blazoned on the sacred page. The Book of Acts, if not a full record, is at least an efficient one of the early Church history. Did it ever occur to you that Ananias and Sapphira held the highest place of infamy in that record because of their attempt to deceive and even betray the Church of the Living God? Has it ever occurred to you that, in all probability, few sins have smitten the Church more often than that of falsifying facts concerning ones wealth and gifts?
Second to these, stands Simon, the sorcerer, who thought to make the Holy Ghost a medium of personal profit.
Ray Stanard Baker, in an article published in the Literary Digest some years ago, called attention to the real wounds from which the Church of God is suffering when he said, In recent years the unthinkable sum of billions of dollars has been given by American people for various philanthropies, and although prominent Christians are named by him as the most munificent of these givers, he is compelled to say, Only a small proportion of this, goes to the churches. And he adds, Not only the dollars of the rich, but the pennies of the poor have been diverted, in large measure, from the Church.
This past week I walked daily to the end of the blind street in Los Angeles, on one side of which stands a great Bible Institute, erected very largely by the gifts of one consecrated Christian, but now suffering for funds; exactly opposite it is being perfected, at the present time, a club house, the elegance of which will beggar description. For this building a few hundred men, many of them church-members, are laying on the altar of personal pleasure $1,000 per month each, until the same shall be completed. And since this building, stretching skyward in height and swept about with decks that would do credit to the greatest steamer that ever sailed the seas, is due to the clubs choice, it is natural to suppose that these contributions are willingly made.
The Church of God in America carries on its rolls a multitude of men whose hands are open for every social or semi-religious, or purely secular enterprise, that makes appeal to their office, but closed against the only institution that has brought light to the worlds darkness and salt to its moral rottenness; and therein the Church suffers.
But a further step must be taken: The Church suffers at the hands of its best representatives. Here again the parallelism between the experiences of the Head, Christ, and the Body, the Church, is evident.
It was Christs best disciples who slept while He faced Gethsemane alone; and it was Christs most notable Apostle, the greatest preacher of the Twelve, who denied Him in Caiaphas porch. The simple truth is that the Church suffers after a kindred manner. The best of us are but poor representatives of His Spirit. We fail Him in His hour of need. We shrink when there is opportunity to fill up His sufferings. We employ condemnable speech and indulge in unchristian conduct at the very hour when He needs us most. Henry Mabie said what should be true, but what we fear is not the fact, when he declared: As God in Christ spared not Himself, so, we, who believe, are to spare ourselves no conformity to the Redeemers will. We are to stop not short of complete crucifixion; to stop on nothing that stands between us and obedience to Him. The Pauline confession is the ideal expression of it: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. Said the eloquent Lacordare, The Church was born crucified.
But is it not a fact that we have now come upon a time when those of us who constitute it, are seeking to draw out the nails, remove the crown of thorns, push aside the sword, and live a life of selfish and personal comfort rather than share with Him the Cross?
These are the true wounds of the Church and they have little or nothing to do with the late war, save as some men, who named the Name of Christ, incited that war to gratify pride of station, extent of country, or to seek the filthy profits of the same. It is a strange thing to charge the Church little flockin the minority everywhere, with what the godless majority wrought.
But, such a charge is in perfect keeping with the false notion that because there are Christians in Germany, the German nation is a Christian nation; that because there are Christians in England or America that England and America are Christian nations. There are no Christian nations! The Bible knows no such thought for this era. The Church is in the world, but not of it. Here, it is a pilgrim and a stranger; and destined to the treatment to which pilgrims and strangers have always been subjected.
But this only leads up to my second remark:
THE CHURCH CANNOT DIE
Its Head, Christ, is not more immortal than is His Body, the Church. They wreathed the Head about with thorns; they drove nails through the hands and feet; they thrust a sword through the body. But both Head and Body of Christ came back from the grave. The lesson is not far to seek!
The wounds of the Church will never prove fatal. The one who charges it with responsibility of the late war has been mistaken in many things. His disloyalty to the authority of the Book is as widely known as is his name. But he was never more mistaken than when he said of the late war: It was a Christian war; fought by Christian nations.
A sentence like that stabs afresh the Church of Christ. But that is not the first stab from this source. It was the same author who wrote of the Bible, The Bible is not infallible in its words, for no translation is faultless. It is not infallible in its language; for though the style is good, it is not perfect. It is not infallible in its facts, for an historian occasionally slips. It is not infallible in its theories, for its theories of the physical universe are mistaken. It is not infallible in its arguments, for some of its arguments are weak. It is not infallible in its moral sanctions, for the Hebrews undoubtedly sometimes confounded their own impulses with the voice of God. It is not infallible in the expectations of even its greatest men, for all the Apostles expected Jesus to return within their own lifetime.
Is it a strange matter that the man who removes the foundations should have some fears lest the house collapse?
But this is not for believers; they hold another and a better view of that blessed institution, His Body.
It is not chargeable with the worlds follies. The late war was a world-folly; nothing was ever more so. It was born of world-ambitions; it was carried forward by world-inventions; it crushed and destroyed world-discoveries.
Sir Robert Anderson, a man who was the head of Scotland Yards, knew perhaps as much of the ways of the world, the flesh and the devil as any living human being; and yet, a man who, as a student of the Sacred Scriptures, was unquestionably Spirit-taught, said, False conceptions of the Church are working great mischief. The most of the perverts to Rome are duped by them; and advocates of the sham, Higher Criticism, appeal to them to justify their rejection of Scripture, for with mingled effrontery and folly they make the doctrine of the Spirits presence in the Church an excuse for rejecting the teaching of the inspired Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament. It is essential to distinguish between The Church as a society, the administration of which was entrusted to men on earth, and the Church as the Body of Christ, dependent only upon Himself as its Lord and Head. The building of the Church, which is His Body is His own work, and it cannot fail. But surely fanaticism or folly alone can refuse to recognize that The gates of hell have prevailed against the organized society on earth The outward frame as Alford calls it, which, in its full and final development or evil will appear as the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
That there is a great proportion of the Church, apostate now, keen observers do not deny. But that many in it are yet loyal is evidenced in certain facts to which the Literary Digest recently called attention.
Mr. Ramsey MacDonald is quoted as having declared that the peace movement of the present is due to the advocacy of the Christian churches; while the vociferous Mr. Shearer, would-be wielder of international thunderbolts, bewails the attempt of the Church to further international good will. Professor Millikan, one of the best known and highly honored of Americas physicists, writing on, What I Believe, declares that a large fraction of the altruistic, humanitarian, and forward-looking work of the world in all its forms, has today its mainspring in the Christian churches. My observation is that about 95 per cent of it has come, and is coming, from the influence of organized religion.
These are tributes to the vitality of the Church of God; to the evidences that there remains a spiritual and self-sacrificing Body of which Jesus spake when He said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
But to the last question,
WILL THE CHURCH CONQUER?
It is a question to which the believer can give but one answerYes!
It has immortality itself. It is His Body. He is not dead; He is alive! That is more than an Easter message; that is a fact of history. As Christ conquered against death and the grave, so for 2,000 years the Church has risen from every coffin in which men sought to shut her up. It has come out of every grave in which they expected to permanently place her form.
The Church is not a short-lived individual to be judged adversely by a single incident. The Church is old; 2,000 years she has walked bravely on. The fires of persecution have wrought for her only what they did for the three Hebrew children, namely, burned her bands away and brought her to greater liberty. The sword has accomplished for her only what it did for Christit has thrust her side only to prove her immortality. Betrayal has wrought for her only what betrayal wrought for Jesusit has flung her but temporarily into the hands of enemies, while her betrayers have gone to an eternal doom. As Christ lives, the Church lives. As the powers of Heaven and earth are lodged in Him, so also with it. By faith it can remove mountains; and by obedience it has determined the courses of the streams of the centuries.
Its success is assured by His Word. It was Christ who said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Even now when it is attacked, the secular press rises to its defense and says, The minister of religion is not manning a sinking ship; not serving a lost cause, or debating a dead issue. He is the servant of a living Master and a living Church, mediating the truth of an eternal life to men in the midst of their brief and fleeting years. Those lukewarm friends of the Churchmodernistsadmit that practically every beneficent feature of modern civilization reveals the touch of the Church. Wherever man has been bettered and society has been made more beautiful, the good seed of Gods Word has been sown by the Church. One Sunday afternoon I called on Dr. O. P. Gifford, that most lucid thinker, that compiler of perfect sentences; and while the years are upon him, his mind knows nothing of senility, and the visit brought to memory the days of our fellowship in Chicago, when as neighbor pastors the lad listened to the more mature man, to be always interested and profited in all that he said. It was Gifford who said, The greatest man that ever entered Europe was Paul, the Apostle. He has done more for her civilization than all her armies and navies. Near Blair castle in Scotland, was a bare grim crag, one of the unsightly features of the great estate. No one dared climb its face to conquer its ugliness. There were two small cannon on the castle grounds. Alexander Nasmyth had a number of canisters made to fit the cannon, filled them with living seeds of grass, shrub and tree, and fired them against the rocky face. The blow shattered the shells, scattered the seeds, and the seeds transformed the crags into; living beauty. So thought Gifford, the eternal seeds of truth, scattered over the nations by the hand of the Church of God, have produced all that is worth while in every civilization.
This is true of Asia and of Europe. It is true of Africa and the Americas. It is true of every spot that the true Church of God has touched. It is the Church of God that has brought man from barbarism and savagery; that has created all moral and ethical interests and brought society more and more toward the ideal that Christ had and holds for the future world. The Church has been His instrument in all this work.
The Church will conquer by Christs presence. He is now its Saviour. His one mission in this age is to turn men from sin to holiness. But He will come again to take the throne, wear the crown, rule from sea to sea. Then He will sit as the Prince of Peace; and at that timenot now, but then bloodshed will end. The Prophets vision will find a perfect fulfilment:
He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
For the mouth of the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
(18) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock . . .It is not easy, in dealing with a text which for many centuries has been the subject-matter of endless controversies, to clear our minds of those afterthoughts of theology which have gathered round it, and, in part at least, overlaid its meaning. It is clear, however, that we can only reach the true meaning by putting those controversies aside, at all events till we have endeavoured to realise what thoughts the words at the time actually conveyed to those who heard them, and that when we have grasped that meaning it will be our best preparation for determining what bearing they have upon the later controversies of ancient or modern times. And (1) it would seem clear that the connection between Peter and the rock (the words in the Greek differ in gender, and , but were identical in the Aramaic, which our Lord probably used) was meant to be brought into special prominence. Now, at last, by this confession of his faith, Peter had risen to the height of his new calling, and was worthy of his new name. (2) Whether he is to be identified with the rock of the next clause is, however, a question on which men may legitimately differ. On the one side there is the probability that in the Aramaic, in which our Lord spoke, there would be no difference between the words in the two clauses; on the other, the possibility that He may have used the Greek words, or that the Evangelist may have intended to mark the distinction which he felt by the use of the two words, which undoubtedly differ in their meaning, being a stone or fragment of rock, while is the rock itself. The Aramaic Cepha, it may be noted, has the former rather than the latter meaning. (3) On the assumption of a distinction there follows the question, What is the rock? Peters faith (subjective)? or the truth (objective) which he confessed? or Christ Himself? Taking all the facts of the case, the balance seems to incline in favour of the last view. (1.) Christ and not Peter is the Rock in 1Co. 10:4, the Foundation in 1Co. 3:11. (2.) The poetry of the Old Testament associated the idea of the Rock with the greatness and steadfastness of God, not with that of a man [Deu. 32:4; Deu. 32:18; 2Sa. 22:3; 2Sa. 23:3; Psa. 18:2; Psa. 18:31; Psa. 18:46; Isa. 17:10; Hab. 1:12 (Hebrew)]. (3.) As with the words, which in their form present a parallel to these, Destroy this temple (Joh. 2:19), so here, we may believe the meaning to have been indicated by significant look or gesture. The Rock on which the Church was to be built was Himself, in the mystery of that union of the Divine and the Human which had been the subject of St. Peters confession. Had Peter himself been meant, we may. add, the simpler form, Thou art Peter, and on thee will I build My Church, would have been clearer and more natural. As it is, the collocation suggests an implied contrast: Thou art the Rock-Apostle; and yet not the Rock on which the Church is to be built. It is enough for thee to have found the Rock, and to have built on the one Foundation. (Comp. Mat. 7:24.)
I will build my church.It is significant that this is the first occurrence of the word Church (Ecclesia) in the New Testament, the only passage but one (Mat. 18:17) in which it is found in the whole cycle of our Lords recorded teaching. Its use was every way significant. Partly, doubtless, it came with the associations which it had in the Greek of the Old Testament, as used for the assembly or congregation of the Lord (Deu. 18:16; Deu. 23:1; Psa. 26:12); but partly also, as soon at least as the word came in its Greek form before Greek readers, it would bring with it the associations of Greek politics. The Ecclesia was the assembly of free citizens, to which belonged judicial and legislative power, and from which aliens and slaves were alike excluded. The mere use of the term was accordingly a momentous step in the education of the disciples. They had been looking for a kingdom with the King, as its visible Head, sitting on an earthly throne. They were told that it was to be realised in a society, an assembly, like those which in earthly polities we call popular or democratic. He, the King, claimed that society as His own. He was its real Head and Founder; but, outwardly, it was to be what the word which He now chose described. And this Church He was about to build. It need hardly be said that the word ecclesia did not lend itself so readily as the English equivalent does to the idea of building. The society and the fabric in which the members of the society meet were not then, as they are now, described by the same term. The similitude was bolder than it seems to us. Like the city set on a hill of Mat. 5:14, like the vine of Joh. 15:1, it may well have been suggested by the scenery in the midst of which the words were uttered. For there upon one rock rose the ruins of the old Canaanite city of Hazor; and on another the stately palace built by the Herodian princes, and still, as the Castle of Shubeibeh, covering an extent of ground equal to that occupied by the Castle of Heidelberg (Stanleys Sinai and Palestine, c. 11). Once started on its way, the similitude became the fruitful source of new thoughts and phrases. The ecclesia was the house of God (1Ti. 3:15); it was a holy temple (Eph. 2:21). All gifts were bestowed for the work of edifying or building it up (1Co. 14:3-4; Eph. 4:12). Those who laboured in that work were as wise architects or master builders (1Co. 3:10). But Christ, we must remember, claims the work of building as His own. Whatever others may do, He is the supreme Master-builder. As in His sacerdotal character, He is at once Priest and Victim, so under the aspect now presented (consistency of metaphors giving way to the necessities of spiritual truth) He is at once the Founder and the Foundation of the new society.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.The gates of Hades (see Note on Mat. 11:23), not of Gehenna, the place of torment. Hades as the shadow-world of the dead, the unseen counterpart of the visible grave, all-absorbing, all-destructive, into whose jaws or gates all things human pass, and from which issue all forces that destroy, is half-idealised, half-personified, as a power, or polity of death. The very phrase, gates of the grave, or of Hades, meets us in Hezekiahs elegy (Isa. 38:10), and Wis. 16:13. In Rev. 6:8 the personification is carried still further, and Death rides upon a pale horse, and Hades follows after him, and both are in the end overthrown and cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14). And as the gates of the Eastern city were the scene at once of kingly judgment (2Sa. 15:2) and of the council of the elders (Pro. 31:23), they became the natural symbol of the polity which ruled there. And so the promise declared that all the powers of Hades, all the forces of destruction that attack and in the long run overpower other societies, should attack, but not overpower, the ecclesia of which Christ was the Founder. Nothing in our Lords teaching is, as measured by mans judgment, more wonderful than the utterance of such a prophecy at such a time. It was, as has been said, a time of seeming failure. He was about to announce, with a clearness unknown before, His coming death as a malefactor, and yet it was at this moment that He proclaimed the perpetuity and triumph of the society which as yet, it may be said, existed only in the germs of a half-realised conception. The history of the world offers hardly any serious parallel to such a prediction, and still less to that fulfilment of it which has been witnessed through eighteen centuries of Christendom, and which does not as yet seem drawing to its close.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Thou art Peter With thy renewed apostleship (for it is indeed a new one) I give thee a renewed name. As Peter signifies stone, and as thou and thy fellow-disciples are to be the foundation stones of my new Church, I name thee forever by that symbolical title of Peter, that is, stone. Upon this rock The material of which thou art composed, as the apostolic foundation stone. In the Syriac language, in which our Lord spoke, the word Peter and this word rock were doubtless the same word. But they were all as truly stones, and made of rock, as he. But as he alone spoke the verbal confession, so to him alone was addressed and belonged the verbal title which commemorated it. Indeed, they are expressly called stones, (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14,) though the word in the original, lithos, is a different without being a less expressive word than Petros.
The expression, this rock upon which I will build my Church, has received very different interpretations from the doctors of the Church in various ages. The first is the construction given by the Church of Rome, and made the basis of the enormous imposture of the papacy. It affirms that the rock is Peter individually, that the commission constituted him supreme apostle, with authority, inherited from him by the bishops of Rome. But 1 . As may be shown, not Peter alone, but each apostle, was a rock and a recipient of the keys, and all were coequal in powers. 2. Were the authority conveyed to Peter alone and personally, it must still be shown that this personal prerogative was among the successional attributes conferred upon him. 3. That Peter was ever bishop of Rome is without historical foundation; and the pretense of a succession from him by the Romish bishop is a fable.
Some have made the word rock designate Christ himself. They hold it to be derogatory to Christ’s dignity for there to be any other foundation stone of his Church than Christ himself. They hold that our Lord said: Thou art Peter, a stone, and upon this rock (pointing perhaps to himself) I will build my Church. But this is inconsistent with the laws of a natural interpretation. Others understand that the confession which Peter made was a rock. Thou art a stone, and upon this rock of truth which thou hast confessed, and upon this faith which thou hast professed, will I build my Church. But Biblical language always holds men, not truths, to be foundation stones. The rock is not the doctrine, nor the confession, but the confessor.
I understand that it is the apostle himself who is the rock; yet not as a man, nor as a private confessor of the Saviour’s Messiahship, nor as Lord of the apostolic twelve, but as a specimen and representative of what all the twelve were. For the Church is said by this same Peter (no doubt in allusion to this celebrated passage) to be built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. It is plain that the question which Peter answered was put to the whole twelve, and that he confessed for the whole twelve, and that the keys which are given in the nineteenth verse were given to the whole, (xviii, 18.) They were all Peters, or stones of the foundation, as well as he; only he, being the front stone of the pile, bore the inscription of the name of Peter, which essentially belonged to all. This image of a rock, as Stanley remarks, may have been suggested by the rock above the town, upon which stood the temple of Cesar Augustus. It is a limestone cliff, some eighty feet high, and from beneath it the streams of the Jordan issue.
Gates The warlike habits of ancient nations required that all great cities should be girt with massy walls, able to resist the enginery of assault then in use. And as the gates would be special points of attack, they were fortified so as to be specially impregnable. And as through the gates the whole city went in and out, there were always the concourse and the crowd. There men resorted for news, for marketing, and for proclamations. The gates became structures with chambers, in which courts were held, legislation was performed, and negotiations with foreign nations transacted. Hence the word gate became a symbol of power and of empire. The gates of death, the gates of hell, were the powers of death or hell.
Hell, here, is in the original Hades. The word properly signifies the invisible state or place of departed spirits, both of the righteous and the wicked. In this sense it is opposed or antithetical to the state of the living. But in a stricter or more usual sense it stands opposed to paradise, and signifies the abode of the departed wicked, for which we have no other English word than hell. The gates of hell are therefore the infernal powers, who from their invisible stronghold manifest their visible hostility. The rock-built Church and the gates of hades are thence two opposing potencies. Shall not prevail Shall not overpower. The battle may waver long and fearfully, but the rock-built fortress shall finally prove victorious.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And I also say to you, that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (congregation/assembly), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
And He then declares that Peter is the Rock-man, and that on ‘this Rock’, the rock of the words that he has spoken (compare Mat 7:24 where building on a rock signifies building on Jesus’ words) will be built the new congregation that He has come to establish. Just as each man was to build his own life on the rock of Jesus’ words so now His new congregation was to be built on the foundation of the words, and the truth that lay behind them, of Peter in his confession. And it will be such that the gates of ‘the world of the dead’ (Hades) will not prevail against it. This may signify either that ‘the world of the dead’ will not be able to bring His congregation down to the grave because He has given them life. Death therefore has no power over them. Or it may mean that, if some die, it will be unable to prevent their resurrection. Compare here Isa 26:19, ‘the earth shall cast forth her dead’, which only applied to the righteous dead. Thus the grave-world (Sheol, Hades) could hold on to them no longer.
The latter half of His words are thus a picturesque way of saying that His congregation will be so endued with eternal life that nothing will be able to hold it back from its sure destiny. The powers of death will be broken. For them death will have been swallowed up for ever (Isa 25:8). Those who truly belong to that congregation will thus be freed from the fear and chains of death. When they have died the gates of the grave-world will be unable to prevent their resurrection (compare the ideas in Isa 26:19 and Rev 1:18). And for others who live until His coming there will be no death (1Th 4:13-18; 1Co 15:52). Death has no power over them. To them the Gates of Hades, which keep in the dead, are irrelevant. Those gates of the grave-world, which once like mighty bastions held in for ever all who had died, will prevail no longer when it comes to the true people of God.
Note that just as ‘You are the Christ’ parallels ‘you are Peter’, so ‘The gates of Hades will not prevail against it’ parallels ‘the Son of the living God’. It is because He is the Lord of life to all who will become true members of His congregation, His new community, that they will thus be freed from the grip and fear of death (compare Heb 2:15). The Messianic feast was from the beginning associated with freedom from the fear of death (see Isa 25:6-8; Isa 26:19), and Jesus here makes clear that it is central to the whole concept of the Messiah.
The interpretation of ‘the rock’ as being ‘the words that Peter had spoken’ was by far the majority view among the early fathers long before Rome tried to claim the words for itself. Of the references by the early fathers over forty held this view, in contrast with eighteen who saw the Rock as Peter, and seventeen who saw the Rock as Christ Himself. Thus those who in the first five hundred years of the early church saw Peter himself as the Rock were very much in the minority (Augustine of Hippo initially did, but later changed his mind and espoused the majority view). This makes rather foolish the suggestion made by some that it is basically a Protestant interpretation to suggest that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter’s words of confession.
And this view is confirmed by the Greek text itself, in that ‘you are petros’ deliberately contrasts with ‘on this petra’, and however the case is argued there can be no doubt that Matthew could have used petros twice had he wished to indicate Peter (we know from external literature that petros was in use for a rock). This is so regardless of what the Aramaic might have been, and the Aramaic can only anyway be the result of guesswork. Besides being outside Jewish territory Jesus may well have spoken in Greek. This play on words in different genders favours the view that whilst a connection is to be made between the two, there is no specific identification, thus indicating Jesus as meaning, ‘You rocklike man, I will use the rock that you have just provided as the foundation of My new community’. For words being seen as such a foundation see Mat 7:25 and 2Ti 2:19.
This is also confirmed by the description ‘ this rock’. Along with the change in gender it does not fit well with it referring to ‘Peter’. Nor in fact would the play on words be necessary for that purpose. ‘On you as the rock I will build my congregation’ would have been more than sufficient and would have had more impact. But most importantly making the play of words apply to Peter actually takes all the attention away from the vital statement that he had made and concentrates it on Peter, and that does not tie in with the following words which demand a reference back to ‘the living God’ as a comparison with the gates of Hades. Nor does it tie in with the fact that Mark and Luke do place all the attention on Jesus as the Christ and ignore the words to Peter altogether. On the other hand, as a reference back to the words that Peter had spoken, with ‘this’ and the slight change of gender indicating it, the words fit admirably, and the word play is perfect.
Others, of course, see it differently, and are entitled to do so. As so often it is a matter of how we see it. Thus many have actually argued that referring the word play to Peter is ‘the only possible interpretation’, a very odd and rather arrogant conclusion. And it is, of course, going much too far as the consensus against it among the majority of the early fathers makes clear. Any such dogmatism is therefore unwarranted. The truth is that both interpretations are possible. It is a question of deciding which fits the facts better, and of what Jesus intended. (Either way there is not the slightest suggestion that Peter’s position will be passed on to ‘successors’. When Peter died many of the Apostles were still living. Had there been a passing on of authority it would have been to one of them).
Furthermore if there is one thing that is clear in Scripture, it is that ‘the church’ was built on Christ (1Co 3:10-11; Eph 2:20) and not on Peter. When the Apostles are mentioned in connection with being the foundation it is specifically all the Apostles as ‘the Apostolate’ who are in mind (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:12; Rev 21:14), with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). While Peter must be given credit for his ‘leadership’ we do wrong to overrate it. The New Testament is careful not to do so. While describing Peter as the first stone in the erection of the whole construction (as the first to recognise and acknowledge the Messiah, but see Joh 1:41), would not necessarily conflict with this, doing so does take away the emphasis from what is really being presented as the true foundation, the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus, which is the emphasis of this passage. It is because He is the Son of the ‘living’ God that the gates of Hades have lost their power.
We may summarise the position as follows;
1) When Jesus speaks of ‘building’ on a ‘rock’ (same Greek words) it indicates building on words that have been spoken (Mat 7:24). This is unquestionable in the case of Mat 7:24 and therefore strongly supports such an interpretation in cases of doubt when the same idea is used. And this is supported by 2Ti 2:19 where the foundation described is also a twofold saying. This thus supports the idea that Jesus was here talking of building His congregation (His house) on the rock of true teaching, that is, on Peter’s confession and its significance, which provided a foundation that could not fail, with due credit being given to Peter as the rock-producer.
The idea of ‘building’ the congregation of Israel is perfectly scriptural. See especiallyJer 31:2-4, which fits in perfectly with the themes in Matthew, ‘the people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness, when Israel sought for rest, the Lord appeared to him from afar, I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore have I continued my faithfulness to you, again I will build you, and you shall be built O virgin Israel’. Note the wilderness motif (Mat 2:15; Mat 3:1; Mat 4:1; Mat 14:13; Mat 15:33), the seeking for rest (Mat 5:3-9; Mat 11:28-30), the One Who came from afar (Mat 3:17; Mat 11:3; Mat 11:25-27; Mat 16:16), the compassion (Mat 9:36; Mat 14:14), and finally the building of ‘virgin Israel’, the pure Israel. (For ‘building’ used in such a way compare also Jer 33:7; Amo 9:11). This might almost have been a blueprint for Matthew.
2) The contrast of petros with petra suggests a play on words but not an identification. Had Jesus wanted to make an identification He could so easily have said ‘on you’ or have used petros. Furthermore ‘this rock’ is a strange and indirect way of identifying with a name, especially with a change of gender, whereas it is a very sensible way of identifying with a saying just recently spoken by that person.
3) Peter is never elsewhere seen as the foundation. When applied to the Apostles the idea is always of all the Apostles (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). But Scripture just as often identifies Christ as the foundation (1Co 3:10-11; Eph 2:20), and His words (Mat 7:25), and in fact states that there can be no other foundation (1Co 3:11). Thus the church could hardly be built on Peter as the foundation (as opposed to the first stone).
4) The large majority of the early fathers saw the ‘petra’ as the statement of Peter, and they at least were unaffected by later controversies.
5) The reason that ‘the gates of Hades (the grave-world)’ could not prevail against the new ‘ekklesia’ is precisely because it is founded on ‘the Christ, the son of the living God’. Death was defeated by the living One. There is absolutely no way in which such a statement could be said to directly connect to the idea of a church founded ‘on Peter’. There is no parallelism in the ideas. For the reason that the gates of Hades will in fact not prevail is precisely because it is being founded on the Son of the living God Who is present and at work, thus the emphasis is clearly being kept on the saying not on Peter.
So in our view everything points to the words as signifying that the church will be built on the truth that Peter has proclaimed. It should also be noted that this is not a question of denouncing the Roman church (except in this interpretation). That should not come into the question. The Roman interpretation is a fantasy whichever way we take it, building up huge dogma out of nothing. For even if Jesus was somewhat misleading in the way He spoke and did mean Peter, it would still justify nothing more than seeing it as a happy play on words. There would be no grounds at all for reading from it any more than a commendation for being the first to say what he did, and an indication that he was, as it were, the first stone laid of the new congregation. For whatever way we interpret it the truth is that the whole of the rest of the New Testament is against seeing Peter as other than one of a number of leading Apostles, for Paul puts James the Lord’s brother first in Gal 2:9, and significantly it is James the brother of John whom in Acts 12 the king selects as his first target, not Peter. Furthermore, Peter is called to account by the church in Acts 11 and has to explain himself there, and the same thing happens in Galatians 2 when he is called to account by Paul. Nor does he ever cite himself as having any special authority other than that of an Apostle, even in his letters. So his prominence is well balanced by counter-factors, revealing that his prominence rather arises as a result of his being an outstanding character among equals. Note especially the continual stress in Acts 1-5 on ‘the Apostles’ as working together (often underestimated).
‘I will build my church/congregation/assembly (ekklesia).’ The word ekklesia is regularly used in LXX to translate qahal where it refers to ‘the congregation’ of Israel. The use here of ekklesia is therefore firmly based on the Greek Old Testament. Whatever the Aramaic behind it (if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic) we have here the continuation of the idea that Jesus is forming a new community, a new ‘congregation’ of Israel, an idea which, as we have seen, comes often in Matthew’s Gospel (note Mat 21:43) and is the common idea lying behind both miraculous feedings of the crowds. They are the new Israel in the wilderness, feeding of the bread of Heaven. In fact a Jewish Messiah without such a Messianic community would have been an enigma. The whole idea of Israel was that it was ‘the congregation of Israel’ who gathered around the earthly Dwellingplace of God and the Law. The New Testament ‘congregation of Israel’ would therefore gather around Christ and His teaching, as epitomised in Peter’s confession. This is another ground for seeing ‘the rock’ as Peter’s confession.
This connection of ‘the congregation’ with the Kingly Rule of Heaven is confirmed in the Psalms. The Kingly Rule over all who are His, is clearly declared in Psa 103:19, where it says, ‘YHWH has established His Name in the Heavens, and His Kingly Rule (Psa 102:19 LXX he basileia autou) reigns over all’. Here God is seen as King in the Heavens, with His Kingly Rule established as He reigns over all in Heaven and earth. The ‘all’ here could signify ‘all people’ or ‘all things’, but the principle is the same, He is Lord over all.
The same is true in the parallel passage in Psa 22:28 which similarly declares ‘of YHWH is the Kingly Rule (Psalm 21:29 LXX tou kuriou he basileia), and He reigns over the nations’. Here the Kingly Rule is specifically seen as ‘over the people’. Thus in the Psalms the Kingly Rule of YHWH over all things and especially ‘over the nations’, that is, over all people, is made clear. Neither Psalmist has any doubts about Who is sovereign over the Universe. That is indeed why He is the Judge of all the earth (Gen 18:25).
The only problem is that that Kingly Rule is not accepted by the people. The nations are seen as in rebellion against that Kingly Rule (e.g. Psa 2:1-2; Psa 5:10; Psa 110:2), and as having taken the Rule out of His hands. But this is not a problem to the Psalmist, for he knows that in the end God will firmly establish His Kingly Rule. Nothing can prevent Him for man is but as grass, and when the wind blows he is gone (Psa 103:15-16). And in contrast those who are oppressed will receive justice and be vindicated, and those who fear Him and keep His covenant and obey His commands will experience His covenant love (Psa 103:6; Psa 103:17-18), and they will do it ‘in the midst of the ekklesia’ (LXX of Psa 22:22 MT) as the ‘great congregation’ (Psa 22:25 MT – LXX ‘en ekklesia megale’). So the Psalmists clearly see that YHWH will re-exert His Kingly Rule, destroying those who continue in rebellion, while delivering those who respond to Him, submit to His covenant and walk in obedience to Him as ‘the congregation’ (ekklesia).
This whole idea is again emphasised in Psalms 22, and here as we have seen it is closely connected with ‘the congregation’. Here also the triumph of God’s Kingly Rule is assured, and it is especially the poor and the meek who will benefit. He has ‘not despised the affliction of the poor’ (Psa 22:24 MT; Psa 22:25 LXX ptowchou), where ‘the poor’ is a description of the Psalmist, (and it is a Psalm of David, and it is thus not speaking of abject poverty). Thus it is to the poor (ptowchoi) in spirit that the Kingly Rule of Heaven belongs (Mat 5:3). Moreover it also tells us that ‘the meek will eat and be satisfied’ (Mat 5:5-6; Psa 22:26; Psa 37:11). And the poor and the meek will praise Him in the ekklesia (‘the congregation’ – Psa 22:22; Psa 22:25)). And the result will be that ‘all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord’ (Psa 22:27). Here then is a description of what Jesus has come to bring about, blessing on the poor and the meek (Mat 5:3; Mat 5:5) through His Kingly Rule, so that they praise Him in ‘the congregation’, with the ends of the earth recognising that Kingly Rule (Mat 22:22), and it is noteworthy that in the Psalm it follows hard on the description of the sufferings of the son of David in Psa 22:12-21.
As a result His Name is to be declared to ‘my brethren’ and in the midst of ‘the congregation’ (LXX ekklesia ‘church’) He is to be praised. Thus those who will finally submit to the Kingly Rule of YHWH are here clearly described as ‘the church’ or ‘the congregation’, and Jesus may well have had this Psalm in mind here. We see therefore in these Psalms the basis of theses two central themes in Matthew, the ‘Kingly Rule’ of Heaven which will benefit the poor and meek, and the ‘congregation’ who will praise YHWH (Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 16:18 . But I again say to thee . The point of the comparison in is, that Peter having made a certain declaration in reference to Jesus, Jesus also , in His turn, now does the same in reference to Peter.
] as an appellative: thou art a rock , Aram. . The form [455] is likewise common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone , as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Rost, and Buttmann, Lexil . II. p. 179), but also as meaning a rock (Plat. Ax . p. 371 E: ; Soph. Phil . 272, O. C . 19, 1591; Pind. Nem . iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression. According to Joh 1:43 , however, Jesus conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first interview (according to Mar 3:16 , somewhat later); but our passage is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name , or the giving of it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that Simon was in reality all that the name conferred upon him implied . Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of John just referred to, which could only have been the case if the words used had been .
] The emphasis is on , which points to Peter (not to Jesus , as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus: on no other than on this rock, hence the feminine form in this instance, because it is not so much a question of the name as of the thing which it indicates, i.e. of that rocky element in the apostle’s character which furnished so solid a foundation for the superstructure of the church that was to be built upon it.
] will I build for myself ( , as in Mat 8:3 , and frequently; see note on Joh 11:32 ) the church . The in the Old Testament , Deu 18:16 ; Deu 23:1 , Jdg 21:8 , the whole assembly of the Jewish people (Act 7:38 ), the theocratic national assembly (comp. Sir 24:1 , and Grimm’s note) is used in the New Testament to denote the community of believers , the Christian church, which, according to a common figure (1Co 3:10 f.; Eph 2:19 ff.; Gal 2:9 ; 1Pe 2:4 f.), is represented as a building , of which Christ here speaks of Himself as the architect, and of Peter as the foundation on which a building is to be raised (Mat 7:24 f.) that will defy every effort to destroy it. But the term . was in such current use in its theocratic sense, that it is not necessary to suppose, especially in the case of a saying so prophetic as this, that it has been borrowed from a later order of things and put into Jesus’ mouth (Weisse, Bleek, Holtzmann). Besides, there can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles is here assigned to Peter, inasmuch as Christ singles him out as that one in particular whose apostolic labours will, in virtue of the stedfast faith for which he is peculiarly distinguished, be the means of securing, so far as human effort can do so (comp. Rev 21:4 ; Gal 2:9 ), the permanence and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found, and to extend more and more in the world. As in accordance with this, we may also mention the precedence given to this disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and likewise the fact that the New Testament uniformly represents him as being, in point of fact, superior to all the others (Act 15:7 ; Act 2:14 ; Gal 1:18 ; Gal 2:7-8 ). This primacy must be impartially conceded, though without involving those inferences which Romanists have founded upon it; for Peter’s successors are not for a moment thought of by Jesus, neither can the popes claim to be his successors, nor was Peter himself ever bishop of Rome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the church at Rome than the Apostle Paul (for the false reasoning on this subject, see Dllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche , p. 315 ff.). The explanation frequently had recourse to in anti-popish controversies, to the effect that the rock does not mean Peter himself, but his stedfast faith and the confession he made of it [456] (Calovius, Ewald, Lange, Wieseler), is incorrect, because the demonstrative expression: , coming immediately after the , can only point to the apostle himself , as does also the , etc., which follows, it being understood, of course, that it was in consideration of Peter’s faith that the Lord declared him to be a foundation of rock. It is this circumstance also that underlies the reference to the apostle’s faith on the part of the Fathers (Ambrose: “non de carne Petri, sed de fide; ” comp. Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine).
The expression: (which does not require the article, Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147 ff.]), is to be explained by the circumstance that because Hades is a place from which there is no possibility of getting out again (Eustathius, ad Od . xi. 276; Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers . p. 164), it is represented under the figure of a palace with strong gates (Son 8:6 f.; Job 38:17 ; Isa 38:10 ; Psa 9:14 ; Psa 107:18 ; Wis 16:13 ; 3Ma 5:51 ; Ev. Nicod. xxi., and Thilo’s note, p. 718; more frequently also in Homer, as Il . viii. 15; Aesch. Agam . 1291; Eur. Hipp . 56).
] So securely will I build my church upon this rock, that the gates of Hades will not he able to resist it , will not prove stronger than it; indicating, by means of a comparison, the great strength and stability of the edifice of the church, even when confronted with so powerful a structure as that of Hades, the gates of which, strong as they are, will yet not prove to be stronger than the building of the church; for when the latter becomes perfected in the Messianic kingdom at the second coming, then those gates will be burst open, in order that the souls of the dead may come forth from the subterranean world to participate in the resurrection and the glory of the kingdom (comp. note on 1Co 15:54 f.), when death (who takes away the souls of men to imprison them in Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed (1Co 15:26 ). So far the victory of the church over Hades is, of course, affirmed, yet not in such a way as to imply that there had been an attack made by the one upon the other, but so as to convey the idea that when the church reaches her perfected condition, then, as a matter of course, the power of the nether world, which snatches away the dead and retains them in its grasp, will also be subdued. This victory presupposes faith on the part of the (Phi 2:10 ), and consequently the previous descensus Christi ad inferos . Moreover, had He chosen, Christ might have expressed Himself thus: ; but, keeping in view the comparative idea which underlies the statement, He prefers to give prominence to “the gates of Hades” by making them the subject, which circumstance, combined with the use of the negative form of expression (Rev 12:8 ), tends to produce a somewhat solemn effect. : praevalere adversus aliquem (Jer 15:18 ; Ael. N. A . v. 19; comp. , Wis 7:30 , and , Act 19:16 ). If we adopt the no less grammatical interpretation of: to overpower, to subdue (Luther and the majority of commentators), a most incongruous idea emerges in reference to the gates , and that whether we understand the victory as one over the devil (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Maldonatus, Michaelis, Keim) or over death (Grotius); for the gates of Hades would thus be represented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropriate, and we would have to suppose what, on the other hand, would be foreign to the sense, that all the monsters of hell would rush out through the opened gates (Ewald, comp. also Weizscker, p. 494). The point of the comparison lies simply in the strength that distinguishes such solid gates as those of Hades, and not also in the Oriental use of the gates as a place of meeting for deliberation (Glckler, Arnoldi), as though the hostile designs of hell were what was meant. Notwithstanding the progressive nature of the discourse and the immediate subject, Wetstein and Clericus refer to Peter ( . ), and suppose the meaning to be: “eum in discrimen vitae venturum, nec tamen eo absterritum iri,” etc.
Notice, besides, the grandeur of the expression: “grandes res etiam grandia verba postulant,” Dissen, ad Pind . p. 715.
[455] Among the later poets is likewise to be met with. See Jacobs, ad Anthol . XIII. p. 22. The name is also to be found in Greek writers of a, later age (Leont. Schol. 18); more frequently in the form (Lobeck, Paral . p. 342).
[456] Comp. Luther’s gloss: “All Christians are Peters on account of the confession here made by Peter, which confession is the rock on which he and all Peters are built.” Melanchthon, generalizing the , understands it in the sense of the verum ministerium . Comp. Art. Smalc . p. 345.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ver. 18. Thou art Peter ] i.e. Thou art a living stone in the spiritual temple, like as Peter saith all other Christians are,1Pe 2:51Pe 2:5 . And here Christ tells Peter why at first he gave him that name.
Upon this rock ] That is, upon this thy rocky, thy solid and substantial confession of me. Austin saith, the rock is Christ, not Peter. But this, saith Stapleton, is humanus lapsus in Augustino. So the schoolmen say that St Austin stood so much for grace, that he yielded too little to free will. But it was a true saying of learned Dr Whitaker’s, in his answer to Campian, Patres in maximis sunt nostri, in multis varii, in minimis vestri. Not Peter, but Phocas, is the right craggy rock upon which the Popish supremacy is founded.
I will build my Church ] Christ calls not the Church , or , which is properly a convention of lords and statesmen, but , which is an assembly of the common people, even those of the lower rank and condition; a according to that1Co 1:261Co 1:26 ; Luk 1:48 ; “he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.”
And the gates of hell, &c. ] That is, all the power and policy of hell combined. The devil lendeth his instruments, the Church’s enemies, his seven heads to plot, and his ten horns to push. Craft and cruelty go together in them, as the asp never wanders alone; and as the Scripture speaks of those birds of prey, Isa 34:16 ; “none of them lacks his mate.” But yet all this shall not prevail: the devil may shake his chain at the saints, not set his fangs in them. For what reason? they stand upon a Rock that is higher than they, so that the floods of temptations and oppositions cannot come so much as at their feet; or if they reach to the heel, yet they come not at the head; or if they should dash higher upon them, yet they break themselves.
Shall not prevail against it ] No, though the devil should discharge at the Church his greatest ordinance; say they were as big as those two cast by Alphonsus, Duke of Ferrara, the one whereof he called the Earthquake, and the other Grandiabolo, or the great devil.
Whether may the Catholic Church err in fundamentals?
It is answered, that though the universal Church of Christ, taken for his mystical body upon earth, and complete number of his elect, cannot err in matters fundamental, yet the external visible part of the Church may err, because the truth of God may be locked up within the hearts of such a company, as in competition of suffrages, cannot make a greater part in a general council; so that the sentence decreed therein may be a fundamental error.
a , est concionari, cum populo agere. Cameron.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. ] The name (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on His first interview with Simon, Joh 1:43 ) or , signifying a rock, the termination being only altered to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ . He was the first of those foundation-stones ( Rev 21:14 ) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation. That this is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord the whole usage of the New Testament shews: in which not doctrines nor confessions, but men , are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building. See 1Pe 2:4-6 ; 1Ti 3:15 (where the pillar is not Timotheus, but the congregation of the faithful) and note: Gal 2:9 ; Eph 2:20 ; Rev 3:12 . And it is on Peter, as by divine revelation making this confession, as thus under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the Apostles in the strength of this faith, as himself founded on the one foundation, , 1Co 3:11 that the Jewish portion of the Church was built, Act 2:1-47 ; Act 3:1-26 ; Act 4:1-37 ; Act 5:1-42 , and the Gentile, Act 10:11 . After this we hear little of him; but during this, the first building time, he is never lost sight of: see especially Act 1:15 ; Act 2:14 ; Act 2:37 ; Act 3:12 ; Act 4:8 ; Act 5:15 ; Act 5:29 ; Act 9:34 ; Act 9:40 ; Act 10:25-26 . We may certainly exclaim with Bengel (Gnomon, p. 117), ‘Tute hc omnia dicuntur; nam quid hc ad Romam?’ Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise, than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter; the very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison, which concerns the person, and him only , so far as it involves a direct promise. In its other and general sense, as applying to all those living stones (Peter’s own expression for members of Christ’s Church) of whom the Church should be built, it implies, as Origen (in Matt. tom. xii. 11, vol. iii. p. 525) excellently comments on it, , , , , , , , . The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Wordsw., whose note see. His zeal to appropriate to Christ bas somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name . To me, it is equally difficult, nay impossible, to deny all reference, in , to the preceding . Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome. In this as in so many other cases we may well say, ‘Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.’
In the prefixing of to , there is no mystic sense, nor solecism, as Wordsw. fancies (nor even emphasis, which is never expressed by the abbreviated enclitic form , but always by ): it is the very commonest arrangement. Cf. ch. Mat 7:24 , . : ib. Mat 7:26 ; ch. Mat 8:8 ; Mat 17:15 : Mar 14:8 ; Luk 6:47 ; Luk 12:18 a [142] . freq.
[142] alii = some cursive mss.
] This word occurs but in one place besides in the Gospels, ch. Mat 18:17 bis, and there in the same sense as here, viz., the congregation of the faithful: only there it is one portion of that congregation, here the whole.
] The gates of Hades by a well-known oriental form of speech, = the power of the kingdom of death . The form is still preserved when the Turkish empire is known as ‘the Ottoman Porte.’ This promise received a remarkable literal fulfilment in the person of Peter in Act 12:6-18 , see especially Mat 16:10 .
The meaning of the promise is, that over the Church so built upon him who was by the strength of that confession the Rock, no adverse power should ever prevail to extinguish it.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 16:18 . : emphatic, something very important about to be said to Peter and about him. , , a happy play of words. Both are appellatives to be translated “thou art a rock and on this rock,” the two being represented by the same word in Aramaean ( ). Elsewhere in the Gospels is a proper name, and only is used in the sense of rock (Mat 7:24 ). What follows is in form a promise to Peter as reward of his faith. It is as personal as the most zealous advocates of Papal supremacy could desire. Yet it is as remote as the poles from what they mean. It is a case of extremes meeting. Christ did not fight to death against one form of spiritual despotism to put another, if possible worse, in its room. Personal in form, the sense of this famous logion can be expressed in abstract terms without reference to Peter’s personality. And that sense, if Christ really spoke the word, must be simple, elementary, suitable to the initial stage; withal religious and ethical rather than ecclesiastical. The more ecclesiastical we make it, the more we play into the hands of those who maintain that the passage is an interpolation. I find in it three ideas: (1) The is to consist of men confessing Jesus to be the Christ. This is the import of . . . . . Peter, believing that truth, is the foundation, and the building is to be of a piece with the foundation. Observe the emphatic position of . The is Christ’s; confessing Him as Christ in Peter’s sense and spirit = being Christian. (2) The new society is to be = the kingdom realised on earth. This is the import of Mat 16:19 , clause 1. The keys are the symbol of this identity. They are the keys of the gate without, not of the doors within. Peter is the gate-keeper, not the with a bunch of keys that open all doors in his hands (against Weiss) , Euthy. Observe it is not the keys of the church but of the kingdom . The meaning is: Peter-like faith in Jesus as the Christ admits into the Kingdom of Heaven. A society of men so believing = the kingdom realised. (3) In the new society the righteousness of the kingdom will find approximate embodiment. This is the import of Mat 16:19 , second clause. Binding and loosing, in Rabbinical dialect, meant forbidding and permitting to be done. The judgment of the Rabbis was mostly wrong: the reverse of the righteousness of the kingdom. The judgment of the new society as to conduct would be in accordance with the truth of things, therefore valid in heaven. That is what Jesus meant to say. Note the perfect participles , = shall be a thing bound or loosed once for all. The truth of all three statements is conditional on the Christ spirit continuing to rule in the new society. Only on that condition is the statement about the , Mat 16:18 , clause 2, valid. What precisely the verbal meaning of the statement is whether that the gates of Hades shall not prevail in conflict against it, as ordinarily understood; or merely that the gates, etc., shall not be stronger than it, without thought of a conflict (Weiss), is of minor moment; the point is that it is not an absolute promise. The will be strong, enduring, only so long as the faith in the Father and in Christ the Son, and the spirit of the Father and the Son, reign in it. When the Christ spirit is weak the Church will be weak, and neither creeds nor governments, nor keys, nor ecclesiastical dignities will be of much help to her.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
I say also = I also say (as well as the Father), looking back to a preceding Agent with Whom the Lord associates Himself.
thou art Peter. See App-147.
Peter. Greek. petros. A stone (loose and movable), as in Joh 1:42.
this. Very emphatic, as though pointing to Himself. See notes on Joh 2:19; Joh 6:58. One of three important passages where “this” stands for the speaker. See notes on Joh 2:19, and Joh 6:58.
this rock = Greek. petra. Petra is Feminine, and therefore could not refer to Peter; but, if it refers to Peter’s confession, then it would agree with homologia (which is feminine), and is rendered confession in 1Ti 6:13, and profession in 1Ti 6:12. Heb 3:1; Heb 4:14; Heb 10:23. Compare 2Co 9:13. Whether we are to understand it (with Augustine and Jerome) as implying “thou hast said [it]” (see App-147), or “thou art Peter”, most Protestants as well as these ancient “Fathers” agree that Peter’s confession is the foundation to which Christ referred, and not Peter himself. He was neither the foundation nor the builder (a poor builder, Mat 16:23) but Christ alone, Whom he had confessed (1Co 3:11). Thus ends the great subject of this second portion of the Lord’s ministry. See App-119.
rock. Greek. petra. A rock (in situ) immovable: the Messiah, as being “the Son of the living God”, Who is the foretold “foundation-stone” (Isa 28:16); and the rejected stone (Psa 118:22).
will = shall. Therefore then future, as in Hos 1:10; Hos 2:23.
church = assembly. Defined as “Israel”, and the “Remnant” (Rom 9:2, Rom 9:1-27). Not the ecclesia of the mystery (or secret) revealed in Ephesians; but that referred to in Psa 22:22, Psa 22:25, &c.
the gates. Put by Figure of speech Metonymy (of Adjunct), App-6, for power.
the gates of hell = the gates of Hades (= THE grave), denoting the power of the grave to retain, as in Isa 38:10. Job 38:17 (Septuagint) Psa 9:13; Psa 107:18.
hell = THE grave. Greek. Hades. See App-131.
prevail. Greek. katischuo. Occurs only here and Luk 23:23 = have full strength, to another’s detriment: i.e. THE grave shall not have power to retain its captives, because Christ holdeth the keys of those gates, and they shall not be strong enough to triumph (Rev 1:18. Compare Psa 68:20). Resurrection is the great truth asserted here. Compare Eze 37:11-14. Act 2:29-31. 1Co 15:55. Hos 13:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] The name (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on His first interview with Simon, Joh 1:43) or , signifying a rock, the termination being only altered to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ. He was the first of those foundation-stones (Rev 21:14) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation. That this is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord the whole usage of the New Testament shews: in which not doctrines nor confessions, but men, are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building. See 1Pe 2:4-6; 1Ti 3:15 (where the pillar is not Timotheus, but the congregation of the faithful) and note: Gal 2:9; Eph 2:20; Rev 3:12. And it is on Peter, as by divine revelation making this confession, as thus under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the Apostles in the strength of this faith, as himself founded on the one foundation, , 1Co 3:11-that the Jewish portion of the Church was built, Act 2:1-47; Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37; Act 5:1-42, and the Gentile, Act 10:11. After this we hear little of him; but during this, the first building time, he is never lost sight of: see especially Act 1:15; Act 2:14; Act 2:37; Act 3:12; Act 4:8; Act 5:15; Act 5:29; Act 9:34; Act 9:40; Act 10:25-26. We may certainly exclaim with Bengel (Gnomon, p. 117), Tute hc omnia dicuntur; nam quid hc ad Romam? Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise, than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter; the very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison, which concerns the person, and him only, so far as it involves a direct promise. In its other and general sense, as applying to all those living stones (Peters own expression for members of Christs Church) of whom the Church should be built, it implies, as Origen (in Matt. tom. xii. 11, vol. iii. p. 525) excellently comments on it, , , , , , , , . The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Wordsw., whose note see. His zeal to appropriate to Christ bas somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name . To me, it is equally difficult, nay impossible, to deny all reference, in , to the preceding . Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome. In this as in so many other cases we may well say, Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.
In the prefixing of to , there is no mystic sense, nor solecism, as Wordsw. fancies (nor even emphasis, which is never expressed by the abbreviated enclitic form , but always by ): it is the very commonest arrangement. Cf. ch. Mat 7:24, . : ib. Mat 7:26; ch. Mat 8:8; Mat 17:15 : Mar 14:8; Luk 6:47; Luk 12:18 a[142]. freq.
[142] alii = some cursive mss.
] This word occurs but in one place besides in the Gospels, ch. Mat 18:17 bis, and there in the same sense as here, viz., the congregation of the faithful: only there it is one portion of that congregation, here the whole.
] The gates of Hades by a well-known oriental form of speech, = the power of the kingdom of death. The form is still preserved when the Turkish empire is known as the Ottoman Porte. This promise received a remarkable literal fulfilment in the person of Peter in Act 12:6-18, see especially Mat 16:10.
The meaning of the promise is, that over the Church so built upon him who was by the strength of that confession the Rock, no adverse power should ever prevail to extinguish it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 16:18. , thou art Peter) This corresponds with great beauty to the words, Thou art the Christ.[740]-, , Peter-rock) elsewhere signifies a stone; but in the case of Simon, a rock. It was not fitting that such a man should be called , with a feminine termination; on the other hand, St Matthew would gladly have written , if the idiom would have allowed it; wherefore these two, and , stand for one name and thing, as both words are expressed in Syriac by the one noun, Kepha. Peter is here used as a proper name; for it is not said, Thou shalt be, but, Thou art; and yet the appellative is at the same time openly declared to denote a rock. The Church of Christ is certainly[741] (Rev 21:14) built on the apostles, inasmuch as they were the first believers, and the rest have been added through their labours; in which matter a certain especial prerogative was conspicuous in the case of Peter, without damage to the equality of apostolic authority; for he first converted many Jews (Acts 2), he first admitted the Gentiles to the Gospel (Acts 10.[742]) He moreover was especially commanded to strengthen his brethren, and to feed the sheep and lambs of the Lord. Nor can we imagine that this illustrious surname, elsewhere commonly attributed to Christ Himself, who is also called the Rock, could without the most important meaning have been bestowed on Peter, who in the list of the apostles is called first, and always put in the first place; see Mat 10:2; see also 1Pe 2:4-7. All these things are said with safety, for what have they to do with Rome?[743] Let the Roman rock beware, lest it fall under the censure of Mat 16:23.-, …, and, etc.) A most magnificent promise, including, in different ways, the gates of hell, the kingdom of heaven, and the earth.-, I will build) He does not say, on this rock I WILL FOUND; for Peter, nevertheless, is not the foundation. The wise build on a rock; see ch. Mat 7:24.- , My Church) A magnificent expression concerning Jesus, not occurring elsewhere in the Gospels.- , the gates of hell) The word (gates) occurs here without the article. Heaven is in the next verse put in opposition to , hell, which occurs here, as in ch. Mat 11:23. Hell has no power against faith; faith has power with reference to heaven.[744] The gates of hell (as elsewhere, the gates of death) are named also in Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13. Hell, , is exceedingly strong (see Son 8:6); how much more its gates? The metaphor in gates is of an architectural kind, as in the expressions, I will build and the keys The Christian Church is like a city without walls, and yet the gates of hell, which assail it, shall never prevail. The defences of hell, and the fortifications of the world, corresponding to them, are here intended; as, for instance, the Otto man Porte, and Rome, where Erasmus Schmidt[745] thinks that the mouth of hell is; that it was opened in the time of Marcus Curtius, and will be opened again hereafter, when the prophecy in Rev 19:20 is fulfilled. Rome, he says, is situated very near those parts of Italy where, before the foundation of Rome, Homer makes his Ulysses descend to hell, and where, after the foundation of Rome, without the intervention of any great distance, Virgil makes his neas do the same. But lest I should appear to wish to plead on poetical credit (although these poetical assertions may be regarded like the prediction of Caiaphas), attend to historical testimony:-In the middle of the Roman Forum, once upon a time, if we are to credit Livy and other Roman writers, the hell, which you (Papists) place in the bowels of the earth, opened its mouth, and that chasm could not be filled up with any amount of earth thrown in, until Marcus Curtius, armed, and on horseback, leapt in-in order, forsooth, that as the heaven received Enoch and Elijah alive, so hell might receive this Curtius alive, as the first fruits, by these gates of hell then opened in the middle of the Roman Forum, which will, without doubt, again be opened by Divine power, when the beast and the false prophet shall be cast alive into the lake of fire burning with sulphur, as is foretold in Rev 19:20.
[740] Christ addresses His own, and Christs own address Him most becomingly throughout the whole of Scripture.-V. g.
[741] Eph 2:20.-E. B.
[742] And the same apostle, in this very passage, was superior to the rest of the disciples in the fact of his knowledge and his confession, seeing that it is probable that none of them would have answered at that time with so great alacrity as did Peter.-V. g.
[743] Whether Peter was for any time at Rome, and that too not in imprisonment, is a matter full of doubt. Grant even that he was: he was so certainly in no other way save as an Apostle; and the Church planted there was blessed with its own ordinary ministers. It was, therefore, to the place of these latter, not to his place, that the Bishops of subsequent ages succeeded, who afterwards degenerated into Lords and Popes.-V. g.
[744] In the original, Contra fidem nil potest infernus: fides potest in clum: where the preposition in implies also motion, or progress towards heaven.-(I. B.)
[745] ERASMUS SCHMIDT was a learned Philologist, born in Misnia in 1560. He became eminent for his skill in Greek and in Mathematics, of both of which he was Professor at Wittenberg, where he died in 1637.-(I. B.)
Even to heaven.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Peter
There is the Greek a play upon the words, “thou art Peter petros– literally ‘a little rock’, and upon this rock Petra I will build my church.” He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter is careful to tell us (1Pe 2:4-9)
church
2 (Greek – (ek=”out of,” kaleo =”to call”), an assembly of called out ones). The word is used of any assembly; the word itself implies no more, as, e.g., the town-meeting at Ephesus Act 19:39 and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness Act 7:38. Israel was a true “church,” but not in any sense the N.T. church–the only point of similarity being that both were “called out” and by the same God. All else is contrast.
(See Scofield “Act 7:38”) See Scofield “Heb 12:23”
hell See note, (See Scofield “Luk 16:23”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
My Church
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.Mat 16:18.
Christ had come very nearly to the close of His Galilean ministry. He had been preaching for about a year, and the twelve disciples had been accompanying Him, listening to His preaching, doing a little preaching themselves, and gradually learning the truth which He had come to proclaim. He had taken them apart by themselves for more close individual religious instruction. He pursued the Socratic method. He asked them to what conclusions they had come as the result of what they had seen and heard during this years companionship with Him. He asked, Who do men say that I am? And the Apostles reported various answers: Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Then He said unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Peter, who was never slow to speak, answered, perhaps as spokesman for the rest, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. To this Christ replied: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
The whole passage from which these words are taken has been a battlefield for centuries between two irreconcilable conceptions of Christianity. Our Lord had put a question to His disciples, and it was no mere casual inquiry suggested by some chance turn in the conversation. It was really an investigation into the foundation of that world-wide kingdom He had come to establish.
I
The Rock Foundation of the Church
Thou art Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.
1. The name of Peter is not bestowed here but interpreted. Christ does not say, Thou shalt be, but Thou art: and so presupposes the former conferring of the name. Unquestionably, the Apostle is the rock on which the Church is built. The efforts to avoid that conclusion would never have been heard of, but for the Roman Catholic controversy; but they are as unnecessary as unsuccessful. Is it credible that in the course of an address which is wholly occupied with conferring prerogatives on the Apostle a clause should come in which is concerned about an altogether different subject from the thou of the preceding and the thee of the following clauses, and which yet should take the very name of the Apostle, slightly modified, for that other subject? We do not interpret other books in that fashion. But it was not the flesh and blood Peter, but Peter as the recipient and faithful utterer of the Divine inspiration in his confession, who received these privileges. Therefore they are not his exclusive property, but belong to his faith, which grasped and confessed the Divine-human Lord; and wherever that faith is, there are these gifts, which are its results. They are the natural consequences of the true faith in Christ in that higher region where the supernatural is the natural. Peters grasp of Christs nature wrought upon his character, as pressure does upon sand, and solidified his shifting impetuosity into rocklike firmness. So the same faith will tend to do in any man. It made him the chief instrument in the establishment of the Early Church. On souls steadied and made solid by like faith, and only on such, can Christ build His Church.
What Christ says, then, is not, On you and your successors in ecclesiastical office I will build My Church; not, On what you have said I will build My Church; but, On you as a man transformed by the power of an indwelling Christ, on you as the type of a long line of humanity growing broader through the sweep and range of history, humanity transformed and changed by the indwelling of My own Messianic life, I will build My Church. This is the interpretation of the text afforded by its setting. This is also Peters own interpretation. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
The change of person on this rock, instead of upon thee, is the natural result of the sudden transition from a direct to a metaphorical address; and is in exact accordance with our Lords manner on other occasions. He said not Destroy Me or the temple of My body, but destroy this temple (Joh 2:19). The change of gender from Petros to petra is the natural result of the change from a proper name to the work from which the proper name is derived. The French language alone, of all those into which the original has been translated, has been able entirely to preserve their identity. The Greek Petros, which for the sake of the masculine termination was necessarily used to express the name itself, was yet so rarely used in any other sense than a stone that the exigency of the language required an immediate return to the word petra, which, as in Greek generally, so also in the New Testament, is the almost invariable appellation of a rock. To speak of any confession or form of words, however sacred, as a foundation or rock, would be completely at variance with the living representation of the New Testament. It is not any doctrine concerning Christ, but Christ Himself, that is spoken of as being in the highest and strictest sense the foundation of the Church (1Co 3:11), and so whenever the same figure is used to express the lower and earthly instruments of the establishment of Gods Kingdom, it is not any teaching or system that is meant, but living human persons. Thus the Apostles are all of them called foundations of the Church in Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14; and, by a nearly similar metaphor, Peter, James, and John are called pillars (Gal 2:9), the faithful Christian a pillar in the temple of God (Rev 3:12), and Timotheus, by a union of both metaphors, the pillar and ground of the truth in the house of God. 1 [Note: A. P. Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, 113.]
Stier is suggestive upon this point: The man is Simon Bar-jona the sinner: not upon him, therefore, is it to be built; but upon this Peter such as grace makes him; upon him because, and in as far as, he certainly corresponds to this name more than the others. Still for this very reason the co-ordinate stones and pillars are by no means excluded, and even the primacy of Peter rests at bottom only upon this, that he is called to begin the preaching of the Word as first among equals. So wonderfully does the Lord vouchsafe to build up the eternal fabric of the Church out of human stones, Himself indeed the chief corner-stone, and the twelve Apostles the twelve foundations, St. Peter the great basal stone of the fabric, while thereon is built up, as that very St. Peter himself testifies, out of living stones, a spiritual house.1 [Note: A. Ritchie, Spiritual Studies in St. Matthews Gospel, ii. 33.]
2. Jesus builds His Church upon average human nature. Who was this man of whom Jesus said that he was a rock? He was the most unstable and shifting of the disciples, as little like a rock as a man could be. Jesus must have known this; Peter must have known it; and the fishermen with Peter must have known it also. He was quick to act and quick to reject. He was what the modern world calls a quitter, a man who could not stand the strain of disapproval or suspicion; a man who was more like sand than rock. Yet Jesus takes him just as he is, believes in him when he does not believe in himself, sees his underlying qualities of strength and leadership, and converts him into the rock which He would have him be. It was like the process of nature which tosses the sand up on the shore and then beats upon it and hardens it until it becomes converted into stone; and we call it, by what seems a contradiction in terms, sandstone. So Jesus takes this unstable character and says to it: Thou shalt be a rock, and by the hard friction and compression of experience Peter becomes that which Jesus saw that he could be.
Mr. Bernard Shaw (who asks not for a new kind of philosophy but for a new kind of man) cannot understand that the thing which is valuable and lovable in our eyes is manthe old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual, respectable man. And the things that have been founded on this creature immortally remain; the things that have been founded on the fancy of the Superman have died with the dying civilizations which alone have given them birth. When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a cowardin a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.1 [Note: G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, 66.]
We are all familiar with the expression a chip of the old block. The quality of the chip bespeaks a block of like quality. The chip is a pattern or sample of the block. In the same way the evidently durable petra calls up the image of a petros of like quality, as that which would afford an unrivalled foundation upon which to build. Thus when our Lord to His first utterance, I also say unto thee, that thou art Petros, adds the words, and upon this petra I will build my church, it is like the farmer taking up the sample, and declaring, With this corn will I sow my field, or the woman viewing the pattern, and saying, Of this stuff will I have a dress. 2 [Note: F. G. Cholmondeley, in The Expositor, 2nd Ser., viii. 76.]
3. Although the metaphor here regards Jesus, not as the foundation, but as the Founder of the Church, yet in a real sense He is the Churchs one foundation, and Scripture generally speaks of Him as such. If you would seek a sufficient foundation for the Church, it can be found only in One who can give support and maintenance to all that the Church is; only in One who can uphold from the first and through the ages all that enters into the parts and thought and activities of the Church; only in One who Himself contains within Himself the substance which, when worked out by the power of living spirit, will become the manifold forms of the Churchs contentsher faith, her sacraments, her worship, her activities, her many kinds and forms of grace and goodness. And He only is such a One who said Upon this rock I will build my church. And so St. Paul says, Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Our Lord proclaimed Himself the Founder of a world-wide and imperishable Society. He did not propose to act powerfully upon the convictions and the characters of individual men, and then to leave to them, when they believed and felt alike, the liberty of voluntarily forming themselves into an association, with a view to reciprocal sympathy and united action. From the first, the formation of a society was not less an essential feature of Christs plan than was His redemptive action upon single souls. The society was not to be a school of thinkers, nor a self-associated company of enterprising fellow-workers; it was to be a Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven, or, as it is also called, the Kingdom of God.1 [Note: H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 101.]
II
The Structure Built upon the Rock
I will build my church.
1. The word church was neither new nor doubtful in meaning to Jesus disciples. It was the rendering they found in that Greek Bible they had in their hands for one of the most sacred and significant terms of the Old Testament. The Greek word ecclesia is the translation of the Hebrew expression for the congregation of the Lord. Peter and his fellow-disciples could not fail to realize that Jesus was forming the little band who had companied with Him into a definite and organized religious community. They were no longer a company of men who formed the school of a Master. They were the church, the society, the congregation of Christ. That society was seen in those twelve men who looked up with wondering eyes and flushed faces to Him whom they had confessed. It was seen again in the Upper Room at the supper table. It was seen again in Jerusalem as, together with the women, they waited on God in prayer, and the number of the names was about an hundred and twenty. It was seen again when the believers met in the first Council at Jerusalem, and the apostles and elders came together to consider. It was seen also whenever men and women met for prayer and for service to Christ.
Ruskin has pointed out how the New Testament use of the word church emphasizes this simple and unecclesiastical meaning of the term. It can be seen to-day where two or three are gathered together in His name. To be gathered together in His name means for some purpose He has ordained which can be fulfilled through His Spirit, under a sense of His presence. Ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia. Where Christ is, there is the Church. It is the organ through which the great truths He preached, those of God, of the meaning and worth of His words and life and passion and redemption, are declared. It is the witness to His resurrection, the evangelist of His message, the pillar and ground of His truth, the fold of His flock. Like every other society it must have its officers and its ceremonies. Like every other society it must have its functions and its services. These have been simply and fully described as the word, sacraments, and prayer. Whatever more men shall plead they may and should add to the form and fashion of the Church of Christ nothing more than this was understood by the men of Christs own time.1 [Note: W. M. Clow, The Secret of the Lord, 46.]
2. The Church, or assembly of Gods people, is represented as a house; not a temple so much as a beleaguered fortress, according to the figure frequently used by the prophets immediately before the Captivity, and naturally suggested by the actual position of the palace and Temple of Jerusalem on their impregnable hills. But this assembly or congregation, which up to this time had been understood only of the Jewish people, is here described as being built afresh; built, according to the significant meaning of that word, which, both in the Old and in the New Testament, always involves the idea of progress, creation, expansion, by Him who here, as so often elsewhere, appropriates to Himself what had up to that time been regarded as the incommunicable attribute of the Lord of Hosts. It is of this fortress, this spiritual house, to use the phrase in his own Epistle (1Pe 2:5), that Peter is to be the foundation-rock. It was no longer to be reared on the literal rock of Zion, but on a living man, and that man not the high priest of Jerusalem but a despised fisherman of Galilee. He who had stepped forward with his great confession in this crisis had shown that he was indeed well fitted to become the stay and support of a congregation no less holy than that which had been with Moses in the wilderness, or with Solomon in the Temple.
We are to be careful as to where we build, and with what we build. The Eddystone Lighthouse was once demolished because it did not properly rest on the rock; and if we are not built on ChristHis doctrine, merit, fellowship, promisewe must be confounded. Let me be sure that I am morticed into the impregnable Rock! Careful with what we build! Eddystone Lighthouse perished once because it was built of wrong materialconstructed of wood, it was burnt. How much often enters into the Christian creed that is not jewel or goldfancies, speculations, notions, utterly worthless! How much often enters into the Christian life that is superficial, freakish, trivial, inferior, and inharmonious! Strange combinations of the true and the false, the precious and the paltry, the beautiful and the vulgar, the essential and the absurd! Lord, grant me grace to build on the graniteto build on Thee.1 [Note: W. L. Watkinson.]
3. Christ describes the Church lovingly as My church. If we read the Gospels carefully we shall see with what strictness of application our Lord used the word My. He never said, My house, My lands, My books, My wife, My child. He said, My Father, My friends, My disciples. When we think of it we shall see that His true possessions were His Father and His ChurchMy Father, My Church.
The Church is the company, now indeed quite innumerable, of disciple-like souls who are for ever and ever learning of Him, some of them, the greater number, beholding His face, and serving Him day and night in His temple; the rest not seeing Him yet, but rejoicing in Him with joy unspeakable and full of glory. In a word, the Church is the faithful souls of every place and name known and unknown to whom His name is unutterably dear and His words are more precious than fine gold, who love Him with a love that is more than human, who trust Him with a trust that is stronger than life or death, whose eager desire is to obey Him and serve Him, and whose fervent prayer for ever and ever is to get His truth made known, His salvation proved, and His name lifted above every name, until at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Upon all these, wherever they are, the Saviour looks down as with the joy of one who looks upon a noble possession, and He says, They are My Church; and there is no other.
It is not our Church; it is Christs Church, first and last and always. We cannot do in it what we please: we must do what Christ pleases. He is its Builder. We may use the term Builder of Him very much as we use it of an architect to-day. Jesus Christ is the Architect of the Christian Church, and we are all builders under Himmasons, carpenters, hodmenand the business of these people, from the foreman of the works right downward, is to carry out the Architects plan.1 [Note: W. B. Selbie, in The British Congregationalist, March 23, 1911.]
A foundation must be hidden and out of sight unto all those that outwardly look upon the house. They cannot perceive it, though every part of the house doth rest upon it. And this hath occasioned many mistakes in the world. An unwise man coming to a great house, seeing the antics [wall decorations] and pictures [figures? pillars?] stand crouching under the windows and sides of the house, may haply think that they bear up the weight of the house, when indeed they are for the most part pargeted [painted] posts. They bear not the house: the house bears them. By their bowing and outward appearance, the man thinks the burden is on them, and supposes it would be an easy thing, at any time, by taking them away, to demolish the house itself. But when he sets himself to work, he finds these things of no value. There is a foundation in the bottom, which bears up the whole, that he thought not of. Men looking upon the Church do find that it is a fair fabric indeed, but cannot imagine how it should stand. A few supporters it seemeth to have in the world, like crouching antics [wall decorations] under the windows, that make some show of under-propping it; here you have a magistrate, there an army or so. Think the men of the world, Can we but remove these people, the whole would quickly topple to the ground. Yea, so foolish have I been myself, and so void of understanding before the Lord, as to take a view of some goodly appearing props of this building and to think, How shall the house be preserved if these be removedwhen lo! suddenly some have been manifested to be held up by the house, and not to hold it up. I say then, Christ, as the foundation of this house, is hidden to the men of this world; they see it not, they believe it not. There is nothing more remote from their apprehension than that Christ should be at the bottom of them and their ways, whom they so much despise.2 [Note: John Owen.]
III
The Security of the Structure
The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
1. The figure of the gates is one of the oldest and most familiar in Eastern life. At the gate of every city its elders sat in judg ment and in council, as Lot sat in the gates of Sodom. From the gates of the city there issued forth its armies of conquest. The gates of Hades is a picturesque and Oriental metaphor for the counsel and craft and force of evil. By the figure Jesus conjured up to the imagination of His disciples that underworld of spiritual evil from which there issued forth the powers of darkness. From these gates of hell Jesus saw down the centuries of the history of His Church, in which all the wisdom of this world, its cunning and cruelty and foul passion, would assail His society of believing men. He foresaw the long struggle when
Zion in her anguish
With Babylon must cope.
He foresaw those eras when the battle would seem to go against His Church. He saw His disciples before the Council. He saw His martyr saints witnessing with their lives when paganism sprung on them like a savage beast roused from its lair. He saw the subtler powers of darkness sapping the faith, corrupting the purities, and leavening the simplicities, of His peoples worship, and service. He saw the enemy sowing his tares among the wheat. But He saw His Church, in the power of its moral and spiritual energy, emerging from every conflict with a greater victory. He saw of the travail of His soul and was satisfied.
2. History has justified this promise. The gates of Hades have not prevailed. The Christian Church, on whose foundation in Himself He began to build with, as it were, but a single stone in His hand, has, beyond all other positive institutions, defied and surmounted destruction. Great changes have taken place since Jesus ventured the promise of this portion of Scripture to a poor fisherman, and threw into the air that challenge against fate. Numerous old customs have decayed. Whole systems of religion and philosophy have passed away. Famous cities have crumbled in the dust, and wild beasts have roamed, and birds of prey have screamed over their ruins. Races of men have been dispersed, or are even now in their last remnants thinly melting into the grave which this earth has for nations as well as for individuals. Yea, the very shores of the seas have begun to shift their places, and the everlasting hills have bowed their heads since Jesus spoke to Peter. But the gates of hell have not prevailed against His Church. Not only has it survived unhurt, as the promise implies, but it has flourished and increased; and under its various names, and with open doors, it still invites the sons of men at once to the shelter of its walls and through the opening of its aisles into paths of endless advancement.
In the middle of the last century all literary and philosophical people in this country were writing down the Church, saying its last days were come: when bishops like Butler were apologizing for Christianity, and historians like David Hume were predicting that by the end of the century it would be among the dead religions; it was just at that time that the great Evangelical revival of Wesley and Whitefield commenced, which carried a new wave, or rather a new fire, of religious fervour into every corner of the land. Again, towards the close of the century, when the French Encyclopdists, led by Voltaire, were saying that Jesus the Nazarene had at last been blotted out, and that Christian temples would be changed into halls of scienceit was at that time that William Carey went out to India, and the great foreign missionary enterprise was renewed, if not commenced, which has carried the sign of the cross, and the light of it, into the darkest parts of the world. And the Church has always been surprising its enemies in that way by its wonderful resurrections, just as Jewish rulers were surprised when they found that the name of Jesus which they had crucified, and buried, and got rid of, was working greater miracles than ever.1 [Note: J. G. Greenhough, The Cross in Modern Life, 116.]
We understand ourselves to be risking no new assertion, but simply reporting what is already the conviction of the greatest of our age, when we say,that cheerfully recognizing, gratefully appropriating whatever Voltaire has proved, or any other man has proved, or shall prove, the Christian Religion, once here, cannot again pass away; that in one or the other form, it will endure through all time; that as in Scripture, so also in the heart of man, is written, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Were the memory of this Faith never so obscured, as, indeed, in all times, the coarse passions and perceptions of the world do all but obliterate it in the hearts of most: yet in every pure soul, in every Poet and Wise Man, it finds a new Missionary, a new Martyr, till the great volume of Universal History is finally closed, and mans destinies are fulfilled in this earth.2 [Note: Carlyle, Miscellanies, ii. 173 (Essay on Voltaire).]
3. The greatest hindrance to the victory of this society of Christ, and the supreme sorrow of all loyal hearts within it, has been the low standard of its Christian character, and the apostasy of those traitor hearts who have sometimes found a place among its leaders. The root of this low level of life, and the source of this treachery, has always been the failure to maintain the test of a personal experience. Wherever Christian teachers sanction membership on the ground of a proper age, a sufficient knowledge, a Christian training, or a due regard for religious observances, unworthy lives and heedless practices abound. So long as the winnowing fan of persecution blew away the chaff there was little but wheat in the garner of God and the society of Christ. When the cleansing fires of a searching poverty, a costly service, and an open outcastness, purged believers hearts of pride and ambition, Christs society was the ideal of a godly chivalry. But when the Church grew rich and powerful, and when title and rank became appanages of its leaders, and office in it became a coveted distinction, then this solemn test of a personal touch with God was evaded. Christs society was no longer a community and brotherhood of pure and lowly men. Whatever rank, or place, or authority any man has held in any church in Christendom, it is a simple certainty that Christ has not welcomed him in at all, if he has had no revelation from God.
Thoreau spoke of men whose pretence to be Christian was ridiculous, for they had no genius for it. Matthew Arnold said of John Wesley that he had a genius for godliness. But nothing can be more misleading than to use such terms as these. They are a distinct denial of Christs great truth that Gods revelation of grace is made not to the wise and prudent, but to babes. There have been men of a real genius for morality, but there is no such thing as a genius for religion. The most reckless and godless wretch, whose name has been a synonym for coarse and blatant atheism, about whom Thoreau and Matthew Arnold would say that he had a genius for devilry, has become a splendid and glorious saint. Wherever there is a soul there is a genius for godliness. But that soul must have come nakedly and openly under the power of God. Then and not till then does it pass into Christs society.1 [Note: W. M. Clow, The Secret of the Lord, 49.]
If Augustin guessed from this upheaval of his whole frame how close at hand was the heavenly visitation, all he felt at the moment was a great need to weep, and he wanted solitude to weep freely. He went down into the garden. Alypius, feeling uneasy, followed at a distance, and in silence sat down beside him on the bench where he had paused. Augustin did not even notice that his friend was there. His agony of spirit began again. All his faults, all his old stains came once more to his mind, and he grew furious against his cowardly feebleness as he felt how much he still clung to them. Oh, to tear himself free from all these miseriesto finish with them once for all! Suddenly he sprang up. It was as if a gust of the tempest had struck him. He rushed to the end of the garden, flung himself on his knees under a fig-tree, and with his forehead pressed against the earth he burst into tears. Even as the olive-tree at Jerusalem which sheltered the last watch of the Divine Master, the fig-tree of Milan saw fall upon its roots a sweat of blood. Augustin, breathless in the victorious embrace of Grace, panted: How long, how long? To-morrow and to-morrow? Why not now? Why not this hour make an end of my vileness?
Now, at this very moment a childs voice from the neighbouring house began repeating in a kind of chant: Take and read, take and read. Augustin shuddered. What was this refrain? Was it a nursery-rhyme that the little children of the countryside used to sing? He could not recollect it; he had never heard it before. Immediately, as upon a Divine command, he rose to his feet and ran back to the place where Alypius was sitting, for he had left St. Pauls Epistles lying there. He opened the book, and the passage on which his eyes first fell was this: Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. The flesh! The sacred text aimed at him directlyat him, Augustin, still so full of lust! This command was the answer from on high.
He put his finger between the leaves, closed the volume. His frenzy had passed away. A great peace was shed upon himit was all over. With a calm face he told Alypius what had happened, and without lingering he went into his mothers room to tell her also. Monnica was not surprised. It was long now since she had been told, Where I am, there shalt thou be also. But she gave way to an outburst of joy. Her mission was done. Now she might sing her canticle of thanksgiving and enter into Gods peace.1 [Note: Louis Bertrand, Saint Augustin (trans. by V. OSullivan), 206.]
My Church
Literature
Abbott (L.), Signs of Promise, 157.
Adeney (W. F.), in Men of the New Testament, 109.
Book (W. H.), The Columbus Tabernacle Sermons, 142.
Brown (C. R.), The Young Mans Affairs, 139.
Burrell (D. J.), The Spirit of the Age, 296.
Clow (W. M.), The Secret of the Lord, 42.
Dewhurst (F. E.), The Investment of Truth, 191.
Goulburn (E. M.), The Holy Catholic Church, 1.
Gray (W. H.), Old Creeds and New Beliefs, 232.
Greenhough (J. G.), The Cross in Modern Life, 105.
Holland (H. S.), Creed and Character, 37.
Horton (R. F.), The Teaching of Jesus, 125.
Jones (J. C.), Studies in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 255.
Neville (W. G.), Sermons, 109.
Newman (J. H.), Sermons Preached on Various Occasions, 263.
Nicoll (W. R.), The Lamp of Sacrifice, 113.
Owen (J. W.), Some Australian Sermons, 167.
Peabody (F. G.), Mornings in the College Chapel, ii. 33.
Sanderson (T.), Unfulfilled Designs, 141.
Shepherd (A.), Bible Studies in Living Subjects, 219.
Stanley (A. P.), Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, 76.
British Congregationalist, March 23, 1911 (W. B. Selbie); Sept. 21, 1911 (J. Warschauer).
Christian World Pulpit, xxxiv. 207 (C. Garrett); lviii. 243 (J. A. Brinkworth).
Churchmans Pulpit: St. Peter, St. James, xv. 36 (C. Hardwick).
Contemporary Review, xcvii. (1910) 165 (G. Whitelock).
Expositor, 2nd Ser., vii. 311 (J. A. Beet).
Homiletic Review, New Ser., xliv. 239 (F. R. Hiel).
Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible
thou: Mat 10:2, Joh 1:42, Gal 2:9
upon: Isa 28:16, 1Co 3:10, 1Co 3:11, Eph 2:19-22, Rev 21:14
I will: Zec 6:12, Zec 6:13, 1Co 3:9, Heb 3:3, Heb 3:4
my: Mat 18:17, Act 2:47, Act 8:1, Eph 3:10, Eph 5:25-27, Eph 5:32, Col 1:18, 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:15
and the: Gen 22:17, 2Sa 18:4, Job 38:17, Psa 9:13, Psa 69:12, Psa 107:18, Psa 127:5, Pro 24:7, Isa 28:6, Isa 38:10, 1Co 15:55, *marg.
shall not: Psa 125:1, Psa 125:2, Isa 54:17, Joh 10:27-30, Rom 8:33-39, Heb 12:28, Rev 11:15, Rev 21:1-4
Reciprocal: Gen 48:14 – and laid Exo 40:8 – the court Exo 40:18 – and fastened Num 23:23 – no enchantment 2Sa 7:13 – He shall 2Sa 7:16 – General 2Sa 22:2 – General 1Ki 7:21 – Boaz 1Ki 15:4 – and to establish 2Ch 4:4 – It stood 2Ch 14:11 – man Est 4:14 – then shall Psa 48:8 – God Psa 87:1 – His Psa 87:5 – highest Psa 129:2 – yet they have Psa 147:2 – build Pro 9:1 – builded Pro 10:25 – an Son 8:9 – we will Isa 14:32 – the Lord Isa 22:22 – And the key Isa 26:1 – salvation Isa 33:20 – not one Isa 54:10 – the mountains Isa 56:5 – will I Isa 62:12 – not Dan 2:34 – a stone Mic 5:4 – shall abide Zec 4:9 – his hands Mat 7:25 – for Luk 22:18 – until Act 5:39 – if Act 12:24 – General Act 15:7 – ye know Gal 2:11 – because Eph 1:22 – to the Eph 2:20 – the foundation Heb 3:6 – whose Heb 10:21 – the house Rev 12:8 – prevailed not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
UPON THIS ROCK
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:18
This verse has played, and still plays, no inconsiderable part in the controversy between our own Church and that which depends upon the See of Rome. But we think rather now of St. Peters Confession of Faith. The story of St. Peters confession is a story of the utmost significance in the Life of our Lord. This is the root faith of Christendom according to its Founderthe faith that He is Divine.
I. The value of a creed.With us, as with St. Peter, this faith must express itself in a confession. People nowadays are a little shy of creeds. They have got a habit of calling their creeds dogmas and formularies, which they consider bad names. But this very modern and common dislike of formularies and dogmas ought not to be pressed so far as to exclude an answer to our Lords own question, Whom say ye that I am? It is on this rock of confessed faith that the Church is built.
II. The nature of religious faith.But I am concerned rather with the nature of religious faith than with a creed. I trust that we all have a strong, passionate conviction for its own part assured upon testimony which for itself is sufficient and unanswerable, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It is faith of that sort that saves a man from failure in life, in whatever degree he attains to; and for this reasonbecause faith of that sort strengthens and fortifies his character. We are all what we are, and we all achieve in life what we achieve, by virtue of the religious faith that is personally ours. It does matter what we believe, and it also matters how we believewhether we believe with our heart and mind and soul and strength; because right belief is not, in itself, faith. And this is, perhaps, what people sometimes have in mind when they protest against dogmas or call themselves Christians without dogma, as though dogmas were antagonistic to faith. They cannot be antagonistic to faith, because the faith of a rational being must be capable of expression in rational speech, and that is dogma. But it is true that assent to a dogma about Christ is not necessarily unclouded faith in Him. Right opinions are most valuable, but we may hold right opinions without the personal relation of love and trust between the soul and God, which is faith and the essence of religion.
III. The faith which saves.Lord, to Whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. To be able to say that to Christ is to have faith in Him; and that is the faith that saves the soul.
Canon Beeching.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
6:18
I do not believe it is necessary to trouble ourselves about a grammatical basis for arguments that are frequently made over the original Greek words for Peter and rock. It is true that they are different from each other to some extent. But if we should consider them only in their literal meaning they are similar. But we know that Jesus did not mean to tell Peter that he was to be “the rock” on which the church would be built. It is also clear from other passages that Peter is in the foundation of the church but so are all the apostles (Eph 2:20). Then we cannot single out this one apostle and say that he is the foundation rock as the Romanists teach. The rock on which Christ intended to build his church was his own divinity that was embodied in the confession that Peter had just made. Much questioning also is done as to the antecedent of it; but that, too, is needless for we know that Jesus meant everything that would be necessary to accomplish his purpose of building his church. Gate is from PULE and Thayer defines it, “access of entrance into any state.” Hell is from HADES and means the state or place of the soul after death. Jesus knew he must die and that his soul would go through this entrance to Hades, but that those gates would not be able to retain him, for he would come out from within them into life again so that he could perfect his work of setting up his church.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[Thou art Peter, etc.] I. There is nothing, either in the dialect of the nation, or in reason, forbids us to think that our Saviour used this very same Greek word, since such Graecizings were not unusual in that nation. But be it granted (which is asserted more without controversy) that he used the Syriac word; yet I deny that he used that very word Cepha; which he did presently after: but he pronounced it Cephas; after the Greek manner; or he spoke it Cephai; in the adjective sense, according to the Syriac formation. For how, I pray, could he be understood by the disciples, or by Peter himself, if in both places he had retained the same word Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church? It is readily answered by the Papists, that “Peter was the rock.” But let them tell me why Matthew used not the same word in Greek, if our Saviour used the same word in Syriac. If he had intimated that the church should be built upon Peter, it had been plainer and more agreeable to be the vulgar idiom to have said, “Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church.”
II. The words concerning the rock upon which the church was to be built are evidently taken out of Isaiah, Mat 28:16; which, the New Testament being interpreter, in very many places do most plainly speak Christ. When therefore Peter, the first of all the disciples (from the very first beginning of the preaching of the gospel), had pronounced most clearly of the person of Christ, and had declared the mystery of the incarnation, and confessed the deity of Christ, the minds of the disciples are, with good reason, called back to those words of Isaiah, that they might learn to acknowledge who that stone was that was set in Sion for a foundation never to be shaken, and whence it came to pass that that foundation remained so unshaken; namely, thence, that he was not a creature, but God himself, the Son of God.
III. Thence, therefore, Peter took his surname; not that he should be argued to be that rock; but because he was so much to be employed in building a church upon a rock; whether it were that church that was to be gathered out of the Jews, of which he was the chief minister, or that of the Gentiles (concerning which the discourse here is principally of), unto which he made the first entrance by the gospel.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 16:18. And I also say unto thee. In answer to thy concession. The meaning of our Lords words has been angrily discussed, and misapprehended by Romanists and Protestants alike.
Thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church. The name Peter had been prophetically given to Simon long before (Joh 1:42), but is now solemnly bestowed. It is a masculine form of the Greek word meaning rock. In the dialect of the country the same word may have been used in both cases.
EXPLANATIONS: 1. The phrase refers to Peter, but as a confessor, as in Christ, representing the other Apostles. This explains both the resemblance and the difference of the words: Petros and petra; it is on the whole preferable. From personal qualities he was the first among equals, and as he had represented the Apostles in the confession, so now in the Lords declaration. He was also the first to preach on the day of Pentecost, when the Church was fully established, and first to preach to the Gentiles. When he was disobedient and dissuading, censure was pronounced upon him (Mat 16:22-23); hence only confessing Peter is meant. The other Apostles are included; since what is addressed to Peter in the next verse is afterwards repeated to all the Apostles (chap. Mat 18:18), to which some add Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14.
2. The Romanist view: Peter is referred to, but as the official head of the Twelve; as such the Bishop of Rome is his successor. Were this correct, Mark and Luke would not have failed to record the saying in their accounts of this interview. Further objections: (1.) It obliterates the distinction between petros and petra; (2.) it is inconsistent with the true nature of the architectural figure; the foundation of a building is one and abiding, and not constantly renewed and changed; (3.) it confounds priority of time with permanent superiority of rank; (4.) it confounds the apostolate, which, strictly speaking, is not transferable but confined to the original personal disciples of Christ and inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, with the post-apostolic episcopate; (5.) it involves an injustice to the other Apostles, who, as a body, are expressly called the foundation, or foundation stones of the Church; (6.) it contradicts the whole spirit of Peters epistles, which is strongly anti-hierarchical, and disclaims any superiority over his fellow-presbyters; (7.) finally, it rests on assumptions, unproven either exegetically or historically, namely, the transferability of Peters primacy, and its actual transfer to the bishop, not of Jerusalem nor of Antioch (where Peter certainly was), but of Rome exclusively. Comp, the note in Schaffs History of the Apostolic Church. p. 374 ff.
3. The ultra Protestant view: Peters confession alone is referred to. Only partially correct.
Objections: (1.) This can scarcely refer to something so remote as the confession: on this theory the clause thou art Peter, has no force whatever, and our Lord is represented as making a play on words almost meaningless; (2.) the Church is founded on living persons, not on abstract doctrines and confessions; (3.) the whole context is against it: the confession about the Person of Christ, the solemn utterance of Peters usual name (Mat 16:17), the personal statement of Mat 16:19. Most later Protestant commentators reject it.
4. Christ means His own Person. So Augustine (in later years) and many excellent commentators. This view claims that petros means a stone and petra a rock, so that Peter is a living stone from Christ the true rock, and whosoever would become a living stone, a petros, must make this true confession of Christ, the Rock, on whom as God and man the Church will be built. Objections:
(1.) The distinction between the words may not have existed in the language used by our Lord; (2.) this is made to refer to something not stated, we are forced to insert in the narrative, that our Lord pointed to Himself. (3.) Our Lord is usually represented, not as the foundation, but as the Builder and Master of the spiritual temple, into which living stones are built, the first ones laid (the Apostles) being the foundation. This view, moreover, avails nothing against the assumptions of the Papal interpretation.
My Church. This word occurs only twice in the Gospels (here and chap. Mat 18:17). The Greek word, meaning an assembly called out (with a technical sense in classical Greek), was used to translate the Hebrew expression: Kahal, congregation. While it usually means a local congregation, it must be taken here in a general sense. It refers to a congregation distinct from the Jewish (my church); the first intimation of such a separation. Its formation is only predicted (I will build). It is not the precise equivalent of the kingdom of heaven, so often spoken of before this time by our Lord. The kingdom of heaven is the new dispensation of grace from heaven of which our Lord was Ruler and Dispenser; His Church was to be an organized and visible congregation of the faithful, manifesting and extending by its worship and ministry that kingdom. The next verse points to such a visible organization, as does the fact that confessing Apostles are spoken of as the foundation. The Jewish idea was that it was to be a temporal power, a State, as the Papal theory allows. This Church is represented as one edifice having one Builder, one foundation, one plan, and hence with a continuity in its history and development, but the New Testament nowhere prophesies or enjoins its external uniformity. The Sacraments and the ministry are directly instituted, but little else. Outward form is required, to prevent anarchy, but the history of the Apostolic Church implies that this outward form may be modified by ecclesiastical enactment which, however useful, cannot be of equal authority with the direct institutions of Christ and his Apostles. Uniformity as the free expression of internal unity, is a great blessing; but it has generally been the result of ecclesiastical or civil tyranny. Visible unity is the end rather than the means, of the growth of Christs Church. Essential unity is maintained, in the confession of the Personal Christ, by believing persons, in the participation of the divinely instituted Sacraments, in the preaching of the Word by an ordained ministry. All these essentials centre in Christ.
And the gates of hell, or hades. An oriental phrase for the power of the kingdom of death. The figure is that of a strong castle.
Shall not prevail against it. The Old Testament organization would perish by violence; but no adverse power shall prevail against this Church. The particular reference is to the spiritual victory of life over death. The Romanists give this a more temporal sense, in keeping with the erroneous view of the first part of the verse.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. As Peter confessed Christ, so Christ confesses him; Peter said, Thou art Christ; Christ says, Thou art Peter, alluding to his name, which signifies a rock; he having made good that title, by the strength, stability, and firmness of his faith.
Observe, 2. A double promise made by Christ to Peter.
1. For the building. 2. For the upholding of his church.
For the building of his church;
1. Upon this rock will I build my church.
Upon what rock? Upon Peter, the rock confessing, say the papists; but if so, no more is said of Peter here, than of all the apostles elsewhere. Gal 2:9.
James and John are called pillars as well as Peter. So that Peter’s superiority over the rest of the apostles can with no shew of reason be from hence inferred. “Upon Christ, the rock confessed,” says the protestants; for Christ is the foundation-stone upon which his church is built; Eph 2:20.
Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. So then, not upon Peter the rock confessing, but upon Christ the rock confessed, and upon the rock of Peter’s confession, that fundamental truth, that Christ is the Son of the living God, is the church built.
Upon this rock will I build my church, Super hanc confessionis tua Petxam edificabo Ecclesiam meam.
Yet Christ may here be said to build his church upon Peter, because he used St. Peter’s ministry in laying the foundation of a christian church among the Jews and Gentiles; he being the first preacher of that faith which he here confessed first to the Jews, Act 2:29-37. and then to the Gentiles Act 10:33-43.
And accordingly St. Peter’s conversion of thousand souls by his ministry, Act 2:41 is looked upon by some as a punctual fulfilling of this promise here made upon him. He was stiled the rock, because he laid the foundations of faith among the nations, that is, the first foundations of a christian church in the world.
Whence it appears, that in this matter St. Peter neither had nor can have a successor; but if the pope will pretend to be his successor in this affair, he must not sit a Rome, lording it there over God’s heritage, but must go in person to the unbelieving Jews, and unconverted Heathens, as Peter did; and labour by his preaching to bring over the Turk, the Jew, and the Infidel to christianity.
Observe next, our Saviour’s promise for the upholding, as well as the building of his church; The gates of hell shall not prevail against it; that is, all the policy and power of the devil and his instruments shall neither destroy my church, nor extinguish the light of this divine truth, which thou hast now made confession of; namely, “That I am the true Messias, the Son of the living God.”
Note, 1. That Jesus Christ is the builder, and will be the upholder of his church.
2. That the church upheld by Christ’s power and promise, shall never be vanquished by the devil’s policy or strength: upon &c. and the gates, &c.
By the gates of hell, understand, 1. The wisdom of hell, gates being the seat of council.
2. The censures and sentence of hell, gates being the place of judicature.
3. By the gates of hell, understand the arms and powers of hell, gates being a place of strength and guards.
So that when Christ secures against hell, he secures against all that receive their commission from hell; neither hell, nor any envenomed by hell, shall prevail against my church.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
CHAPTER 36
THE CHURCH
Mat 16:18-19; Mar 8:30; Luk 9:21. Matthew And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind on earth, shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in the heavens. Then He commanded His disciples that they must tell no one that He is the Christ. It is really indispensable at this date of our Lords ministry, that His leading disciples, and especially the apostles, should have clear and positive information as to His Messiahship, only eight months of His earthly ministry still to transpire, with the exception of the forty days intervening between His resurrection and ascension. Now that He is gone away off, out of the circle of His ministry, into this temporary retirement in Sryia, He has an opportune privilege with His disciples alone. As to the multitudes, still let them solve the problem in contemplation of His mighty works, which were certainly calculated to settle the conviction of all the unprejudiced that He was truly the Christ. As He moves on in His ministry, the public proclamation of His Messiahship comes more and more to the front, the matter being in such a shape with the Jews and Romans that such an avowal would cost Him, or any one else, His life. We now reach a grand, salient epoch in our Saviors ministry, when the gospel Church is conspicuously revealed to the apostles as destined to supersede the politico-ecclesiasticism of the former dispensation. N.B. Peter is a Greek word, and means rock. Jesus gave it to Simon, indicative of his firmness. The world, however, never saw the rock in Peters character till after the fires of Pentecost had burned out all the trash of depravity, revealing to all the world the solid rock, which caused him to live a hero and die a martyr. When our Savior says to Simon, Thou art Peter i.e., Thou art rock, He used the word Petros, which means a broken rock, such as we use in a building immediately He says, Upon this rock, using the word Petra, which means the great unbroken strata, underlying the continents and oceans, and constituting the foundation of the earth. This word He applies to Himself. All Christian character, in this life, is more or less fragmentary, Jesus being the only Integer, whom we all imitate, and to whose perfection and glory we aspire, living in the hope of that coming glorification which shall make us like Him. Now what about the Church? Our Saviors word is Ekklesia, from Ek, out, and kaleo, to call. Hence it means the called out no hereditary hierarchy, nor ecclesiasticism, like Judaism; but the individual souls, in every nation, who hear the call of the Holy Ghost (and He calls all), and come out of the world, forsaking all, and identifying themselves with God for time and eternity. These, and only these, constitute the Church of God. Now He said, On this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. We must go down through all the sand, mud, soapstone, and slate, till we strike the solid rock, and there build our superstructure, if we want it to stand. The calling out by the Holy Ghost is regeneration; and the building on Christ, sanctification. Hence the instability and vacillation peculiar to unsanctified Christians; while the genuine and thorough sanctification gives you a stability which will not cower in the presence of roaring lions and martyr fires. Here, He says, I will build, i.e., edify you indefinitely. While the negative side of sanctification, going down to the deep foundation of the earth, and consciously reaching the solid rock, is definite and complete. The erection of the superstructure i.e., the building of Christian character will not only continue through this life, beautifully progressive, but through all eternity, towering into loftier heights, and broading into grander dimensions, thus accumulating the Divine similitude and glory, the wonder of redeemed humanity, and the admiration of the unfallen intelligences of the celestial universe through the flight of eternal ages. Comparatively few have any correct conception as to what the Church is. They think the carnal, worldly people, constituting the congregations in the different denominations, are the Church; whereas none but the truly regenerated ever have been or can be members of Gods Church; regeneration bringing you in, and sanctification establishing you, qualifying you for official responsibilities, such as the pastorate, the diaconate, eldership, evangelism, and teaching.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
16:18 {5} And I say also unto thee, That thou art {l} Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the {m} gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(5) That is true faith, which confesses Christ, the virtue of which is invincible.
(l) Christ spoke in the Syrian tongue, and therefore did not use this discourse to distinguish between Petros, which signifies Peter, and Petra, which signifies a rock, but in both places used the word Cephas: but his meaning is what is written in Greek, in which the different word endings distinguish between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and foundation: or else he named him Peter because of the confession of his faith, which is the Church’s as well as his, as the old fathers witness, for so says Theophylact. That confession which you have made, shall be the foundation of the believers.
(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by “gates” are meant cities which are made strong with wise preparation and fortifications, and this is the meaning: whatever Satan can do by cunning or strength. So does Paul, calling them strongholds; 2Co 10:4 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Revelation about the church 16:18-20
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
"I say to you" (cf. Mat 5:18; Mat 5:20; Mat 5:22; Mat 5:28; Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39; Mat 5:44; Mat 8:10) may imply that Jesus would continue the revelation the Father had begun. However the phrase occurs elsewhere where that contrast is not in view. Undoubtedly it means that Jesus was about to teach the disciples something, at least. Peter had made his declaration, and now Jesus would make His declaration.
Jesus drew attention to Peter’s name because He was about to make a pun on it. The English name "Peter" is a transliteration of the Greek name Petros. Petros translates the Aramaic word kepa. This word transliterated into Greek is Kephas from which we get "Cephas" in English (Joh 1:42; et al.). The Aramaic word kepa was a rare name in Jesus’ day (cf. Mat 4:18). It means "rock." Peter’s nickname was "Rocky." Petros commonly meant "stone" in pre-Christian Greek, but kepa, which underlies the Greek, means "(massive) rock." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 367.] It is incorrect to say that the name "Peter" describes a small stone.
There are three main views about the identity of "this rock." The first is that Jesus meant Peter was the rock. [Note: E.g., Plummer, pp. 228-29; Carson, "Matthew," p. 468; France, The Gospel . . ., p. 621-22; Edwin W. Rice, People’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 168-69; and most Roman Catholic interpreters.] Peter’s name meant "rock," so this identity seems natural in the context. Moreover, Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus’ subsequent confirmation of his confession also point in that direction. Peter became the leading disciple in the early church (Acts 1-12), a third argument for this view.
However, Jesus used two different words for "Peter" and "rock." Matthew recorded the Aramaic distinction in Greek. If Jesus had wanted to identify Peter as the rock on which He would build the church, the clearest way to do this would have been to use the same word. Second, while Peter’s confession triggered Jesus’ comment about building His church on a rock, it did not place Peter in a privileged position among the disciples. Jesus never treated Peter as though he occupied a favored position in the church because he made this confession. Third, the New Testament writers never connected Peter’s leadership in the early church with his confession. That rested on divine election, Jesus’ command to strengthen his brethren (Luk 22:32), and Peter’s personality.
A second view is that Jesus meant the truth that Peter confessed, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah and God, was the rock. [Note: E.g., M’Neile, p. 241; Tasker, p. 158; and Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 202.] This position has in its favor the different words Jesus used for "rock" and the definite "this" before "rock" as identifying something in the immediately preceding context. Furthermore other New Testament references to the foundation of the church could refer to the truth concerning Jesus’ person and work (Rom 9:33; Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:5-8).
Nevertheless calling the truth about Jesus a rock when Jesus had just called Peter a rock seems unnecessarily confusing. The addition of "this" only compounds the confusion. Also, the other New Testament passages that refer to the foundation of the church never identify that foundation as the truth about Jesus. They point to something else.
This leads us to the third and what I believe is the best solution to this problem. Many interpreters believe that Jesus Himself is the Rock in view. [Note: E.g., Morgan, p. 211; Walvoord, Matthew: . . ., p. 123; Lenski, p. 626; Barbieri, p. 57; and Wiersbe, 1:57.] The Old Testament prophets likened Messiah to a stone (Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16), and Jesus claimed to be that stone (Mat 21:42). Peter himself identified Jesus as that stone (Act 4:10-12; 1Pe 2:5-8), as Paul did (Rom 9:32-33; 1Co 3:11; 1Co 10:4; Eph 2:20). Second, this interpretation explains the use of two different though related words for "rock." Third, this view accounts for the use of "this" since Jesus was present when He said these words. Fourth, the Old Testament used the figure of a rock to describe God (Deu 32:4; Deu 32:15; Deu 32:18; Deu 32:30-31; Deu 32:37; 2Sa 22:2; Psa 18:2; Psa 18:31; Psa 18:46; Psa 28:1). Since Peter had just confessed that Jesus was God, it would have been natural for Jesus to use this figure of God to picture Himself.
Critics of this view point out that this interpretation makes Jesus mix His metaphors. Jesus becomes the foundation of the church and the builder of the church. However the New Testament refers explicitly to Jesus as the church’s foundation elsewhere (Rom 9:33; 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:5-8), and Jesus referred to Himself as the church’s builder here. Second, Paul’s statement that God builds the church on the apostles and prophets has ruled Jesus out as the foundation for some interpreters (Eph 2:20). However, the apostles and prophets were the foundation in a secondary sense, Jesus being the chief rock (cornerstone) around which they also provided a foundation (cf. 1Co 3:10-11). Third, Peter’s prominence among the disciples and in the early church seems to some to argue against Jesus being the foundation in view. Still Peter was only the first among equals. His leadership in the church was not essentially different from the other apostles as the New Testament writers present it.
The next key word in this important verse is "church." The only occurrences of this word (Gr. ekklesia) in all four Gospels are here and in Mat 18:17. [Note: See Benjamin L. Merkle, "The Meaning of ’Ekklesia in Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17," Bibliotheca Sacra 167:667 (July-September 2010):281-91.] The Greek word refers to an assembly of people called out for a particular purpose. It comes from the verb ekkaleo, "to call out from." The Septuagint translators used it of Israel (Deu 4:10; Jos 9:2; Jdg 20:2; et al.; cf. Act 7:38). [Note: See M’Neile, p. 241.] In the New Testament it also refers to an assembly of citizens with no religious significance (Act 19:39). [Note: See Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:93.] However, Jesus used it here with a new meaning.
". . . ekklesia was the only possible word to express the Christian body as distinct from Jews. . . . He had just ended His public ministry in Galilee, had taken the disciples on a long journey alone, and was about to go to Jerusalem with the avowed intention of being killed; no moment was more suitable for preparing His followers to become a new body, isolated both from the masses and from the civil and religious authorities." [Note: M’Neile, pp. 241-42.]
Jesus used the term ekklesia to refer to a new entity that was yet to come into existence. He said He would build it in the future. He would not yet establish His kingdom on earth, but He would build His church.
"The word build is also significant because it implies the gradual erection of the church under the symbolism of living stones being built upon Christ, the foundation stone, as indicated in 1Pe 2:4-8. This was to be the purpose of God before the second coming, in contrast to the millennial kingdom, which would follow the second coming." [Note: Walvoord, Matthew: . . ., p. 124.]
Furthermore Jesus claimed the church as His own in a unique sense by calling it "my church." Jesus revealed the existence of this new organism here for the first time in history. There is no Old Testament revelation of its existence. Jesus brought it into being because Israel had rejected her Messiah, and consequently God would postpone the kingdom of God on earth. In the meantime Jesus would construct an entirely new entity. He Himself would be its foundation and its builder.
Jesus’ "church" is not the same as His "kingdom." It is interesting that even some scholars who were not dispensationalists acknowledged this. [Note: E.g., Carson, "Matthew," p. 369; and Plummer, p. 230.] Jesus would create a new entity (on the day of Pentecost), but He only postponed the kingdom, which will come into being at His second coming after He has taken the church to heaven (Joh 14:1-3). "Christians" (believers living in the church age) will return with Jesus Christ at His second coming and will participate in His messianic kingdom on the earth in glorified bodies (cf. 1Th 4:17).
"Gates" in biblical usage refer to fortifications (Gen 22:17; Psa 127:5). "Hades" is the place of departed spirits (cf. Mat 5:22; Mat 11:23). Together these terms refer to death and dying (Job 17:16; Job 38:17; Psa 9:13; Psa 107:18; Isa 38:10). [Note: See Jack P. Lewis, "’The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It’ (Mat 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):349-67.] Jesus meant that the powers of death, Satan and his hosts doing their most powerful work of opposing life, would not prevail over the church. The church cannot die. This statement anticipated Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection and translation of church saints. Even Jesus’ death would not prevent Him from building the church. Jesus’ church would be a living church just a Yahweh was the living God (cf. Mat 16:16).
This is all that Jesus revealed about the church here. He simply introduced this new revelation to the disciples as a farmer plants a seed. All of their thinking had been about the kingdom. To say more about the church now would have confused them unnecessarily. Jesus would provide more revelation about the church later (ch. 18; John 14-16).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
2. Instruction about the King’s program 16:18-17:13
Jesus proceeded immediately to build on the disciples’ faith. They were now ready for more information. He gave them new revelation concerning what lay ahead so they would be ready for it.